Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Peter Atkinson in the Chair]

Written evidence to be reported to the House

CC01 Professor Banatvala

Peter Atkinson: Before we start, I should say that we anticipate three or four Divisions in the House at about 3.15 pm, in which case I will obviously suspend the Committee for 15 minutes for each Division. If, at the end of the series of votes, we are all back a bit earlier than that, we will endeavour to start proceedings immediately.

Clause 34

Advice in connection with carbon budgets

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 12, in clause 34, page 18, line 6, leave out subsection (5).—[Joan Ruddock.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Peter Atkinson: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: Government amendments Nos. 19 and 20.
Government new clause 3—Advice of Committee on Climate Change on impact report.

Joan Ruddock: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Atkinson.
I was endeavouring to answer—clearly not successfully —some questions asked by the hon. Member for Cheltenham. I shall now, once again, try to clarify just why some of the adaptation sub-committee’s functions in subsection (5) are to be deleted.
As I have said, our objection is to the policy role. That was agreed in the other place. We do believe that the Committee on Climate Change, through the sub-committee, should be given not the job of commenting on the adequacy of the Government’s adaptation programme, as under subsection (5)(a), but rather functions relating to the progress of implementation. We will come to that when we debate the next clause. We consider the adaptation programme to be a policy matter and, therefore, that is ruled out by what I said about policy matters earlier.
What we believe should happen is what we have already made provision for in clause 63, under which the Secretary of State must publish a strategy for the use of his powers to issue guidance and directions to reporting authorities. That is a policy issue as well. For that reason, we are removing subsection (5)(d). I hope that the hon. Member for Cheltenham will see that there is a coherent theme and that we are removing consistently what we regard as policy matters. In the subsequent clause, there are other functions in which he is interested.

Martin Horwood: It is good to be serving under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr. Atkinson.
I am grateful to the Minister for her comments and her permission for me to talk to her officials during the break. However, I am afraid that both her remarks and those conversations reinforced my belief that while subsection (5), which gives the adaptation sub-committee the duty to provide expert advice, is being removed, nothing equivalent is being substituted. Government new clause 4, to which the Minister referred, puts in place a scrutiny duty subsequent to a Government programme for adaptation being developed, but I am afraid that I cannot see any equivalent to the core function of the adaptation sub-committee described in subsection (5) being replaced. I am afraid that I have to remain opposed to Government amendment No. 12.
The Minister has not addressed amendment No. 20 a great deal, but I shall comment on it in passing. During the recent debate in the Chamber on detention without charge or trial for 42 days, new clauses to the Counter-Terrorism Bill were moved allowing the Secretary of State, on making an order under powers to declare reserved power exercisable, to
“forthwith notify...the chairman of the Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons...the chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and...the chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee”,
thereby giving statutory functions to Select Committees. There is a precedent for including Select Committees in statute and it should be followed in this case.

Joan Ruddock: On that latter point, the issue is not at all comparable. That was a notification process, including a whole range of Committees. We are talking about one Select Committee being in the Bill, when we believe that other Select Committees—indeed, many—would be relevant.
As the hon. Gentleman and I differ on the matter, I will say one more thing to him: new clause 3 will be added to the Bill after clause 55. That means that when we come to debate clause 55 in part 4, it will be clear that that part of the Bill deals with adaptation. Therefore, the new clause and what it tells us about the duties falling within that section make it clear that this is advice on risk assessment, which is related to adaptation.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35

Reports on Progress

Joan Ruddock: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in clause 35, page 18, line 38, leave out subsection (3).

Peter Atkinson: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 21
Government new clause 4—Reporting on progress in connection with adaptation.

Joan Ruddock: We have already discussed how the second aspect of the sub-committee’s role would be to provide scrutiny of the implementation of the adaptation programme. We set out that function in new clause 4. I should clarify that the scrutiny of the programme would be for England and reserved matters only, as the devolved Administrations have their own adaptation programmes. That new function of the committee will ensure that Parliament receives regular, independent reports on the progress that is being made on the implementation of the objectives, proposals and policies in the adaptation programme.
The committee will consider how much is being done by the UK Government, their agencies and everyone else involved in ensuring that we are adapting to a changing climate. The committee will report to Parliament every two years, at the same time as every second report on progress on mitigation issues under clause 35.
We have listened carefully to the calls that have been made for annual progress reporting, but we do not think that that is justified in the case of adaptation. Adaptation to a changing climate is a long-term issue. It takes time for many of the benefits of the programme to be realised and to be measured against our assessment of the changing climate. Those assessments are being undertaken on a five-yearly basis.
We will use our annual public service agreement reporting to highlight any significant changes and provide a full report under the Bill every other year. We think that that arrangement is a better use of resources as it allows us to focus more effort on delivery of the programme. However, we have introduced a provision that will allow us to bring forward annual reporting, should that prove to be both practically worth while and necessary at a later time.
Clause 35(3) currently requires the Committee on Climate Change to comment on the Government’s adaptation programme. However, that is now superseded by new clause 4, so Government amendment No. 13 will remove those sections. As we are giving the committee a formal role in providing independent progress reports on the adaptation programme, we propose, through Government amendment No. 21, to remove the Secretary of State’s functions under clause 36(3). As we will discuss later, we have also tabled Government amendment No. 22, which proposes removing clause 57, which requires the Secretary of State to produce regular progress reports on adaptation.
The amendments will remove the requirements for the Government to produce regular reports on adaptation as they are no longer necessary. The Secretary of State will instead respond to the committee’s progress reports on the adaptation programme at the same time as he responds in relation to mitigation, which will be by 15 October in the reporting year.
The existing provisions under clause 36, alongside new clause 4, will ensure that the reports of the Committee on Climate Change include advice on progress on adaptation, and the Government will have a duty to respond to those reports. Government amendment No. 21 thus simply removes duplication from the Bill.
This reporting process will improve existing arrangements and ensure compatibility with the new role of the adaptation sub-committee. It will ensure that Parliament receives regular independent assessments of how well the Government are doing in delivering the adaptation programme, and will require the Government to respond to those. It will also join up reporting on adaptation and mitigation, which is really important, and it will provide flexibility for the future if more frequent reporting is needed.

Gregory Barker: I will be brief. My comments on this set of amendments will be similar to those that I made on the previous group, on which I appreciate that the Minister went some way to assuage our concerns. Although I recognise that some tidying up of the Bill is required, we must be careful and judicious and note what powers we may be diluting in the process.
The Minister has alluded to this in her comments, but will she say whether it is the Government’s wish to remove the requirement for the independent committee to report to Parliament on the Government’s progress on the adaptation programme? Why is it necessary to remove the Secretary of State’s duty to give an assessment to Parliament on the progress that the Government of the day have made towards meeting their adaptation policies specifically? Will the Minister assure the Committee that new clause 4 is in no way inferior in its demands on the Government to the clauses that it will replace? We would appreciate a degree of clarity on that.

Martin Horwood: I have similar concerns about the amendments. Government amendment No. 13 is a rather strange dilution of the reporting requirement on adaptation, in that it will no longer be annual. The Minister argued that mitigation and the associated long-term strategies justify an annual report by the Secretary of State, but that somehow adaptation should be excluded from annual reporting. Adaptation is a matter of current Government policy on flood budgets, health strategies and transport infrastructure, which, as we all know, changes from month to month, let alone from year to year, so I find her argument rather strange. Perhaps she would reiterate exactly why she thinks that adaptation, in particular, is not a matter for immediate annual reporting concern.
The Minister said that Government amendment No. 21 would remove simple duplication, but that is not quite the case. Clause 56(3), which would be removed, refers specifically not only to reporting on adaptation, but
“the progress made towards implementing the objectives, proposals and policies set out in earlier programmes.”
There is no such wording under new clause 4 or any of the other Government amendments so, in a sense, the proposal seems to be yet another wriggly amendment designed to remove the immediate responsibility of the Government to report on something specific. In this case, it would be whether they were actually meeting the targets and objectives that they had set out in previous adaptation programmes. That is important reporting, and it should stay in the Bill.

Joan Ruddock: I turn first to what was said by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. I need to reiterate that we are in no sense diluting matters. We are removing requirements that existed for the Government before we decided to give the power to the committee. The committee will be asked to make an independent assessment of progress on the Government’s adaptation programme. It will be giving advice on the progress that is made. There is no way in which such action will dilute things. Indeed, we would have expected the hon. Gentleman to understand that an independent committee undertaking such work is likely to strengthen provisions rather than dilute them.
The progress reports will cover all adaptation programmes, past and present. That is shown by the reference under new clause 4 to “programmes”. We believe that adaptation requires more time in respect of the progress that is made. The subject is enormous. It covers every aspect of our society, country, people and economy in their adaptation to climate change. We have non-statutory programmes at present, and we believe that annual reporting is unlikely to give a proper analysis of what is happening and of the Government’s progress.
I am talking about an analysis of the progress made against the programme that the Government have set. The hon. Member for Cheltenham suggested that we should retain clause 56(3), but the issues that it covers are more concerned with policies than progress. I stress that there is no point in duplication. We need the Government to have an adaptation programme and for proper scrutiny to be made of its progress. Amendment agreed to.

Clause 35, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Duty to provide advice or other assistance on request

Amendment made: No. 14, in clause 37, page 19, line 26, leave out from ‘or’ to end of line 27 and insert—
‘(c) adaptation to climate change, or
(d) any other matter relating to climate change.’.—[Joan Ruddock.]

Clause 37, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 38 and 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40

Powers to give guidance

Amendments made: No. 15, in clause 40, page 20, line 31, at end insert—
‘(e) section [Advice of Committee on Climate Change on impact report] (advice on report on impact of climate change), or
(f) section [Reporting on progress in connection with adaptation] (reporting on progress in connection with adaptation).’.
No. 16, in clause 40, page 20, line 32, leave out ‘such guidance’ and insert
‘guidance under any of paragraphs (a) to (e)’.—[Joan Ruddock.]

Clause 40, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41

Powers to give direction

Amendments made: No. 17, in clause 41, page 21, line 15, at end insert—
‘(e) section [Advice of Committee on Climate Change on impact report] (advice on report on impact of climate change), or
(f) section [Reporting on progress in connection with adaptation] (reporting on progress in connection with adaptation).’.
No. 18, in clause 41, page 21, line 16, leave out ‘such directions’ and insert
‘directions under any of paragraphs (a) to (e)’.—[Joan Ruddock.]

Clause 41, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43

Trading schemes

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Atkinson.
I want to press the Minister on trading schemes. Much of the detail that we will consider will be set out in regulations. Clause 43 defines the trading schemes, but does not specify which trading schemes will be introduced using the enabling powers in later clauses. The Minister will be aware that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee picked up on that and we were disappointed that more detail was not given at this stage.
My second point is that the clause could have gone a little further by stating how the national trading scheme for England will relate to the devolved trading schemes, and especially how the UK trading scheme will relate to the EU emissions trading scheme. Who is to rule on the compatibility of the two trading schemes? Will it be the Secretary of State? A little more meat on the bones would be very helpful.

Michael Weir: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr. Atkinson.
I make a similar point to that of the hon. Member for Vale of York. The clause seems to give all national authorities the power to begin their own trading schemes, but it is not clear how they will interact with each other and, more crucially, the EU ETS. As the Minister will know, one of the early problems with the EU ETS was a fall in the price of carbon to a very low level. It is not clear how the carbon price would be dealt with in the various sub-national and UK-wide schemes, as opposed to the EU scheme. I am concerned that we might arrive at a situation in which the various schemes cover the same industry, but the price of carbon in each one may be different. That could cause problems for both the UK scheme and the EU scheme as a whole, and I would like some reassurances about how that will be dealt with. Obviously, the price of carbon will be crucial in making the EU—or any other—scheme work.

Phil Woolas: Thank you, Mr. Atkinson, and welcome to the sitting. It is a pleasure to be here.
Hon. Members have asked important questions. Carbon trading schemes, on which there is consensus, lie at the heart of the Bill, and their success should be judged on not just the EU scheme, but on similar arrangements, such as the previous scheme for sulphur dioxide and the very successful Montreal convention, which we recently celebrated 20 years of.
In answer to questions raised, it is important that carbon trading schemes are compatible and that there is an exchange mechanism so that we can roll out such schemes across the globe. Our long-term aim is to see the expansion of the ETS to cover more sectors and gases, but some sectors might not be appropriate for inclusion. The enabling powers in the Bill will provide the Government or devolved Administrations of the day with additional options to take domestic action in sectors that are unsuitable at the time for inclusion in the ETS. They will also allow them to take domestic action ahead of the EU when that is cost-effective and necessary to reduce UK emissions. We believe that that approach might also help sectors to prepare for inclusion. Any decision on the best policy instrument will take account of the UK Government’s objectives in the round. For example, we might wish to supplement the EU-level action and introduce our own policies to uncover inefficiencies and to support clean technologies. The powers here will provide them and the devolved Administrations with the opportunity to do that.
I am trying to create an architecture for carbon trading schemes that allows inter-exchange. It might be that prices will differ, in which case we would have exchange rates, would we not?

Michael Weir: The Minister said that the schemes are meant for industries that are not appropriate for inclusion in the EU ETS, but it seems to me that the definitions would allow a national scheme to include industries that are in the ETS. In such a situation, would the ETS take precedence, or could industries find themselves operating in both schemes?

Phil Woolas: I see the hon. Gentleman’s point. It would be a question not of preference, but of a scheme’s operability. For the sake of argument, let us say that one established a scheme for bus companies to trade carbon credits and that a European bus trading scheme—for example, a sectoral scheme—was also in place. Those two schemes would have a relationship through, for example, independent auditing and buying and selling. At any one time, the price of carbon in the different scheme might be different.
If I interpreted the hon. Gentleman’s question correctly, he is worried that a Scottish bus carbon trading scheme, for example, might undermine the European ETS, if not set up correctly. That would not be possible because, as we were reminded by the hon. Member for Northavon, the architecture of the European ETS is based on units, not on countries. It would not be subservient any more or less than the pound in Scotland is subservient to the euro.

Michael Weir: Try telling that to English shopkeepers!

Phil Woolas: In answer to the hon. Member for Vale of York, clause 43 on its own provides for the enabling power for the Government or devolved Administrations to establish trading schemes. Powers to establish those schemes are provided later within the rules. At present, neither the Secretary of State nor Welsh Ministers have the power to establish such trading schemes through legislation. The Scottish Parliament can make trading schemes within its competence in Scotland. Interestingly, the Northern Ireland Assembly can make trading schemes within its competence in Northern Ireland.
Our aim is for each national authority to have the same set of powers without changing or upsetting the devolution settlements that are already in place. As the hon. Member for Angus said, the idea is to enable joint trading schemes to be made in secondary legislation, and that cannot be done at present.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44

Activities to which trading schemes may apply

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Steve Webb: As we are dealing with a new part of the Bill and a clause on trading schemes, I want to ask the Minister a question about the philosophy and principle underlying the creation of trading schemes. To what extent do the Government think that sectoral schemes are a good idea over and above what one might loosely call aggregate schemes? By analogy with the argument that has been used elsewhere in our deliberations, one could say that carbon is carbon is carbon. In that case all we need to do is set overall caps. If we create sectoral schemes within those caps, or alongside them, we may create a new bureaucracy and a new infrastructure, but not add a great deal.
On the other hand, just as we have argued that a tonne of carbon saved in the UK has a different meaning and value to that saved elsewhere because of the leadership role, one might argue that a sectoral trading scheme has value quite apart from the aggregate effect, because we want to create innovation in transport or in industry. As clause 44 is about the activities to which trading schemes may apply, what are the principles that will guide the Government in deciding when it is appropriate to establish a sectoral scheme and when it is appropriate to let the carbon price, the ETS or some aggregate scheme that is not sector specific be the dominant approach?

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman poses an important question. The issue is widely debated in the international forum, so it is useful to have the opportunity to respond.
The word “sectoral” is used by different people in different ways. Sometimes it refers directly to a particular industrial sector. Ceramics comes to mind, for reasons that are evident on the Labour Benches, but we could also use the example of steel or aluminium. Some people use the word “sectors” to mean energy production or transport. Clearly, it is important that we answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Northavon.
Our policy is firmly based on the pre-requisite of national emissions cap and trade—national targets and binding agreements. On that basis, we believe that there may well be advantages for further reduction of emissions through sector schemes—international sector schemes on steel come to mind.

Joan Walley: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in those sectoral arrangements, it is the Government’s intention to allow as much flexibility as possible within the individual sectors so that we can achieve our global emissions? Do they recognise that we need such flexibility?

Phil Woolas: Indeed. To achieve the balance that we discussed, we require such powers. Let me explain. The first application of the new powers will be to support the carbon reduction commitment—a new UK cap-and-trade scheme that will apply to large non-energy-intensive organisations in the public and private sectors, including, we anticipate, Government Departments. That is a progressive step.
The powers may also be used to introduce a household energy supplier obligation to succeed the carbon emissions reduction target that ends in 2011. The principles underlying any additional scheme would be its interoperability with other schemes, specifically the ETS, its interoperability through that mechanism with other global or worldwide schemes, and, just as importantly, whether it would achieve further reductions in emissions than would existing participation in the ETS or the other two schemes that I mentioned. Given that we are legislating for a long period, it is possible that the ETS will not exist, in which case we would need those powers. We are simply taking powers that Northern Ireland and Scotland already have to set up such schemes.

Steve Webb: Will the Minister clarify whether the provisions apply only to sectors, broadly defined, that are outside the ETS? If they applied to people within the ETS, what would happen if they traded in the sectoral scheme, did well and built up credits? I want to know about that interaction.
The question takes us back to the debate about the domestic effort as against the international effort. Having a national cap or target means that if we do well domestically, we simply sell our surplus credit to somewhere else, so the aggregate across the EU will not fall. That seems to run counter to what we are trying to achieve through the sectoral scheme. Perhaps sectoral schemes should be non-EU ETS schemes.

Phil Woolas: I see the hon. Gentleman’s point. Sectoral schemes could be within the ETS, but they probably will not be. One can envisage circumstances involving international industries that are not predominantly European-based. I hesitate to offer an example because trade associations will write to me about it, but let us say that the international widget manufacturing association wanted to propose a scheme, and that a lot of widgets were produced in a place—again, I shall not mention a particular country—that is east of Berlin.
Suppose a judgment was made that one could preserve UK competitiveness and encourage a reduction in emissions across a European geographical area. One might want to do that within the ETS, so we have not ruled it out. We are trying to provide flexibility. In practice, we can identify steel, aluminium and, perhaps, food processing, as well as other sectors as they grow from the grass roots upwards. My example of bus operation is not fanciful;. One could envisage such a scheme as we embed carbon budgets. I hope I have answered the question.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

Trading schemes

Martin Horwood: I beg to move amendment No. 74, in schedule 2, page 51, line 33, leave out from ‘responsible’ to end of line 34.

Peter Atkinson: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 73, in schedule 2, page 51, line 34, at end insert—
‘(5A) (a) Any method specified for the purposes of paragraph (5) shall have the aim of ensuring that any amount calculated bears as close a relationship as possible to the actual emissions of the activities to which the trading scheme applies;
(b) where biomass is used as an energy source, any such method shall take account of the carbon absorbed during the lifetime of the biomass;
(c) “biomass” has the same meaning as in the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations Order 2007.’.

Martin Horwood: The amendments follow on from our previous debate, with a similar theme of interoperability. They seek to replace the rather vague wording in paragraph 3(5)(b) with more specific wording specifying that not only should regulations be introduced to set out the method by which the amount of reductions are to be measured and calculated, but they should bear
“as close a relationship as possible to the actual emissions of the activities to the which the trading scheme applies.”
One would hope that that would be an unnecessary measure, but practice tells us otherwise.
A wonderful variety of carbon and energy reduction schemes is developing. We have the ETS, climate change agreements and the carbon reduction commitment, and in another context there are renewables obligation certificates. However, the problem with that complexity is that perverse results start to emerge. The interplay between the last two schemes that I mentioned—renewables obligation certificates and carbon reduction commitment —is causing a few problems in the commercial, private sector.
The carbon reduction commitment is rather a misnomer, as it incentivises not the reduction of carbon, but the reduction of energy use. It is valuable as an energy efficiency measure, but it has one serious flaw as it assumes that all energy coming into an enterprise is at the grid average, and that there is an equal need to reduce energy across all of a company’s activities, no matter what the power source.
In some cases it is difficult to pin down the source of energy, but in other cases it is rather easy. I cite a domestic example. I have a solar-powered radio in my flat in London. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]. Very sound, I know. I never plug it in and it is powered entirely by the solar panel on top of the radio. I leave it on all day—discreetly, so as not to disturb my neighbours—and it is a useful security measure, especially if our addresses get published. It quietly plays all day while the sun is shining. There is no reason for me to practice energy efficiency, turn it off and reduce the amount of energy that I use, as it is powered from an entirely renewable source that does not compete with any other energy source and is completely carbon free.
There is an exact parallel in commercial enterprises where companies have on-site renewables, which, in some companies, are becoming highly significant. BT is, I think, the biggest and most impressive example so far, although an hon. Member quoted Lily Allen’s recording studio as another, and BT gets 30 per cent. of its energy from its own on-site renewable energy generation. The carbon reduction commitment treats that in the same way as energy coming from Drax or Kingsnorth or any other of those fossil-fuel intensive energy sources.
The Renewable Energy Association, BT and others would love to claim renewable obligation certificates for that renewable energy. That produces a problem of double counting or even double subsidy, whereby the same carbon reduction gains credit in the ROCs scheme and in the carbon reduction commitment. I acknowledge that there is a problem, and I would not entirely endorse the Renewable Energy Association’s optimistic lobbying on that front. However, it is clearly unfair that enterprises cannot at least exclude the energy generated entirely from a renewable source from the carbon reduction commitment scheme, so that it would effectively be neutralised and at least would not count as coming from a dirty source.
That is why it is important that the scheme design is changed or the rules amended so that in future, as in the clause, schemes are designed to pay close attention to carbon emissions. They should not be simply plucked out of a broader agenda such as energy efficiency, as that may not be appropriate. Various companies have raised that serious point about what is clearly an anomaly in the current scheme, which the amendment is designed to tackle.

Gregory Barker: The amendments are intended to enhance levels of transparency and accountability in the calculation of emissions. The hon. Member for Cheltenham asked some sensible questions of the Minister, and enlightened us as to his home listening habits.
It is not in the interests of accountability or transparency on trading schemes for the method by which emissions are measured to be entirely self-regulated, or for there to be any doubt about how they are calculated. There is eminent sense in these Liberal Democrat proposals.

Phil Woolas: The point that the hon. Member for Cheltenham made is right: perhaps carbon reduction commitment is a misnomer. It is intended primarily as an energy efficiency measure because it measures energy use, rather than direct emissions—it is a proxy for emissions. Conceptually, the carbon reduction commitment lies underneath the climate change agreements and brings in the mid-ranging organisations. Fifty per cent. of emissions in the UK are covered by the ETS and we are trying to bring in other organisations, such as large energy users. Increasing energy prices may change the relationship.
The difficulty, however, and the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, philosophically, is double counting. One must ensure that the mother scheme—if I may use that phrase; I think I can—or the parent scheme that caps emissions is not undermined by the carbon reduction commitment that lies underneath it. To follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s argument, if there was a way of measuring direct emissions from the use of energy by mid-ranking organisations, one could have a subservient direct emissions cap and trading scheme, but there remains the issue of double counting. I shall give him the technical explanation in a minute, but bearing in mind his point about needing to take account of where we get our energy from within the carbon reduction commitment, we are trying to provide an incentive to energy efficiency, which I know he supports.

Martin Horwood: I am grateful to the Minister and he is making perfectly valid points. As regards one scheme undermining another, does he not accept that at the moment, an enterprise taking all its energy from a dirty source has no incentive under the scheme to develop on-site renewables, even though that would clearly be a good thing to do, because that energy would be treated exactly the same as the dirty energy? Surely, the key is accountability for the energy that is coming from outside, measurement of it, and the transparency of the process. As that is something the Government are working on, they should be happy to accept the amendment.

Phil Woolas: I will come to why I should not be happy to accept the amendment in a moment, but the hon. Gentleman’s policy point is right. Indeed, I hear the echo of many meetings with my colleagues in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. The carbon reduction commitment will take into account the source of the energy and will incentivise use away from dirty energy by the renewables obligation and, indirectly, through the ETS.
Martin Horwoodindicated dissent.

Phil Woolas: Let me explain, and then the hon. Gentleman will stop shaking his head and start nodding it, I hope. We want to encourage the uptake of renewable energy. However, where the carbon savings from renewables are already counted by supplier schemes, such as renewable obligation certificates, it would result in double counting if the same units of renewable electricity could count towards the carbon reduction commitment. The proposed approach for the carbon reduction commitment is, therefore, simply to ensure that there is no double counting. However, we propose that participants may count renewable electricity generated on site if it is not counted against targets in the renewables obligation. That approach demonstrates the commitment to ensuring that the carbon reduction commitment delivers additional carbon savings over and above those that suppliers are required to deliver through the renewables obligation certificates scheme, and will help to encourage it further.
Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 would alter a provision of the trading scheme powers with regard to how the greenhouse emissions from activities covered by trading schemes may be calculated. The amendments make specific provision on how energy from biomass should be treated under future trading schemes. As currently drafted, under paragraph 3 of schedule 2, trading scheme regulations must identify the activities covered by the trading scheme, and
“specify the units of measurement of the activities for the purposes of the scheme”.
Further, paragraph (5)(a) ensures that the activities covered by a scheme can be calculated with
“reference to the amount (in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent)”
for which they are responsible, and paragraph (5)(b), which amendment No. 73 would remove, ensures that the regulations may specify how that amount is calculated. In philosophical terms, that exactly meets the point that the hon. Gentleman is rightly making.
To explain further the whole debate about alternative sources, if one looks at electric cars, they do not in and of themselves reduce emissions; it depends on where the electricity comes from. That is what counts. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the CRC must incentivise not just energy efficiency but emissions reductions.
There are two likely situations. First, let us take it as read that it is often difficult, expensive and sometimes frankly impossible, to measure the volume of greenhouse gases emitted at a site, so it is common that emissions in a trading scheme are derived by taking the volume of fuel consumed and applying co-efficients to calculate the volume of greenhouse gases that result. It is the calculation of that co-efficient that a scheme must do—to meet the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Secondly, these powers apply equally to direct and indirect emissions, as set out in clause 43. Indirect emissions are sometimes measured by taking electricity use at, say, the office building in question, and then applying the same co-efficients to work out the volume of greenhouse gases when the electricity was produced back at the power station—to meet the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Alternatively, by taking the volume of fuel sold for combustion and applying co-efficients, it could be possible to calculate the volume of emissions that result.
Under the CRC, for example, it is proposed that emissions from participants’ energy use will be calculated using a grid electricity emissions factor. That will be based on the five-year rolling average emissions factor, which is currently 0.523 kg of CO2 per kWh. That shows how the provisions in paragraph (5)(b) may be applied.
Martin Horwoodrose—

Phil Woolas: I have confused the hon. Gentleman. Let me reassure him, and then he will not need to intervene. Paragraph (5)(b) ensures greater flexibility in the calculation of emissions from a trading scheme. My figure is the co-efficient around which that is calculated; it is the baseline, which is taken up or down depending on the individual participant. One should remember that my officials and others will be discussing with each participant in the CRC their particular circumstances. That is necessary. It is not intended that paragraph (5) will allow the Government or a national authority to fudge the figures. I must cover things from the other point of view as well, or the hon. Gentleman will press me as to whether the provision is too flexible, and he would be right to do so.
Paragraph (5)(b) ensures that the methodology for measuring emissions may be set out in the regulations, which gives the hon. Gentleman the guarantee he is looking for. Removing that sub-paragraph would therefore have the effect of reducing the transparency of the trading scheme. The hon. Gentleman is right, and I have added powers to make regulations to meet the points he makes. I agree with him that CRC is a misnomer.

Martin Horwood: For once, I am reassured by the Minister’s comments. [Interruption.] Maybe I am going soft, at this late stage in the Committee. His comments about what is possible under the new clauses are encouraging. If he is true to his word, that will be a positive step. I was slightly worried that nevertheless he went on to talk about schemes based on grid averages, although I accept what he also said, that they could be varied for individual participants. The use of grid averages as the baseline is part of the problem. Once we have proper accounting for the source of energy, it is difficult to see why we need the grid average baseline at all.

Phil Woolas: If I used “reference points”, rather than “baseline”, perhaps that would help.

Martin Horwood: I am grateful to the Minister but, again, if we are accounting accurately for energy, that should in time remove the need even for a reference point. Furthermore, if each energy statement to a particular enterprise specified, from the energy company’s side, what the source of that energy was, there would be a double benefit, by preventing energy companies from claiming double credit for green-tariff electricity, as we have discussed before. We will be able to account for each unit of electricity coming in, and its source. However, the intention behind the Minister’s comments is clear. I am glad that he appears to be accepting that the carbon reduction commitment has an anomaly at the moment and that, under the provisions of the Bill, Ministers will be able to change or remove that anomaly, to tighten up the scheme, which will be warmly welcomed in industry. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Phil Woolas: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in schedule 2, page 60, line 3, after ‘participants’, insert
‘or other persons authorised to trade in allowances, credits or certificates’.
The amendment makes a small change to the trading scheme powers in schedule 2 by ensuring that trading scheme regulations may make provision to levy charges on third parties, as well as on participants, for the cost of operating the trading schemes. As currently drafted, the Bill does not allow us to do that. We need that power in order to operate such a scheme. I hope that the amendment is accepted as a technical one.

Gregory Barker: Any amendment that judiciously enhances both the role and the efficiency of the carbon markets will have our support. The amendment appears to do just that. I am content to give it our support.
As the Bill stands, administration of national-level trading schemes can only be conducted by participants, such as devolved authorities or central Government. Under the amendment, powers to run and charge for a national levy scheme could be administered by a group other than a national authority; a scheme could be run by
“other persons authorised to trade in allowances, credits or certificates”.
That presumably means that banks, brokers or local authorities could run a scheme on behalf of or under contract to national authorities.
The amendment may be technical, but potentially it is a big little amendment. We are, therefore, taking an awful lot on trust. Could the Minister clarify in a little more detail which authorised persons he would envisage carrying out such duties on behalf of national authorities? We see no reason why the Government should run something when it could just as easily be done, or done better, at local level or by the private sector. I would welcome the Minister taking the opportunity to clarify who the other authorised persons are intended to be.

Phil Woolas: The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is, predominantly, the Environment Agency. Let me clarify. The issue is about who can trade within the scheme, not who can run the scheme. Perhaps I should have made myself even clearer. If people trade within the scheme, but a third party is not allowed to pay into it, we would inadvertently be taking away a big United Kingdom industry growth area. The type of organisation that we envisage being able to run the trading schemes is the Environment Agency or a similar body.

Martin Horwood: I am now slightly puzzled, because I had assumed that the amendment was rather innocuous and that it would simply extend the scope of those who can run the schemes to commercial organisations. Like the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, I had considered that to be a positive step. However, I am now confused, given that the Government have in mind yet another of their agencies. Does the Minister imagine that profit-making organisations could be involved in convenient circumstances?

Phil Woolas: Once again, I have learned the lesson that reading out the next paragraph in the brief saves time in the debate. I am sorry, I should have made matters clear.
As drafted, paragraphs 9 and 19 of schedule 2 allow for third parties to trade in allowances or certificates under a trading scheme. We believe that that is necessary, so that a deeper and more liquid market can develop as a result of the scheme than would be the case if only the participants—the actual organisations and companies, whether public or private, that were members of the scheme—were allowed to trade. Those paragraphs make a distinction between third parties and participants, and that is not replicated under paragraph 26 in connection with the power to levy charges towards a trading scheme.
Participants are those who have an obligation under the scheme, such as the company, the Department or the supermarket, that are typically there to surrender a particular number of allowances equal to their emissions—indirect emissions, in some cases—to acquire a certain number of certificates. Third parties are those who have no obligations, but decide voluntarily as a business to trade in the scheme’s allowances or certificates. I should have explained that I am taking the provision under paragraphs 9 and 19 and putting it under paragraph 26. If the hon. Member for Cheltenham wants a debate on other agencies, we will come to that.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 46

Relevant national authorities

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: In their own words, the Government admit that the devolution settlement on climate change policy is complex. Elements of energy policy and international relations are reserve matters, although generally energy policy is not reserved to Northern Ireland. Environmental policy is devolved to varying degrees, and the devolution settlement reflects that. The provisions in the Bill will be backed up by a concordat that will set out the rules and responsibilities of the different Administrations in more detail. If the concordat is not finalised until the Bill has finished its passage through Parliament, will we therefore not have the opportunity to scrutinise it? A climate change Bill will be presented to the Scottish Parliament in the autumn, so would it be a good idea to submit the concordat to the House for our consideration?

Phil Woolas: The hon. Lady asks a fair question. We are trying to define the national authorities that may make trading schemes under the powers in the Bill. We are looking at future schemes, 30 years ahead, and the clause sets out the scope of each authority, reflecting the devolution settlements of each legislature. As the Bill’s scope is UK-wide, it is right for each UK Administration to have the power to introduce trading schemes, reduce emissions or encourage activities that reduce emissions. That will ensure that contributions towards meeting the targets and budgets in the Bill can be made by each of the UK’s territorial authorities, and as the hon. Lady says, that should be done in a way that does not cut across the devolution settlements.
Clause 48 and schedule 3—the other side of the coin with regard to clause 46—will allow the national authorities to establish trading schemes jointly. That is our preference over a single-country scheme, as it provides for an increased number of participants, which will give a deeper and more liquid market.
In the interest of transparency and continued constructive relations between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, we expect to publish the concordat when it is finalised. That is consistent with the approach taken, for example, in the case of the bilateral memorandum of understanding on fisheries between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Scottish Executive, which, I am told, is publicly available. However, as the precise detail of the concordat depends on the final provisions included in what, we hope, will become the Climate Change Act, it is not appropriate to publish the draft concordat ahead of Royal Assent. The answer to the question is yes, but we can do it only after Royal Assent.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 47 and 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Trading schemes regulations: further provisions

Question proposed, That the schedule be the Third schedule to the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: Schedule 3 goes into some detail. Not in the Bill or in primary legislation, but in secondary legislation, enormous powers will be given to the Secretary of State. The Government and the Minister ask us to take a great deal on trust, and I wonder whether the Orders in Council will cover such matters. For example, if the Secretary of State proceeds with personal carbon accounts, will that be subject to Orders in Council? If we proceed down the path of personal carbon accounts for England, will they therefore also exist in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
I make this point in every Committee that I attend, but the point of standing for Parliament and serving on Committees is that we are given the opportunity carefully to scrutinise the enabling powers. When such far-reaching, wide powers are placed on trust in the Secretary of State, we have effectively devolved responsibility to the Secretary of State without the opportunity to scrutinise the Orders in Council and the powers therein.
I think that the Minister said earlier that such measures will be subject to affirmative procedures and resolution, but if that scenario was to appear in relation to personal carbon accounts, would such accounts apply, by Orders in Council, to the whole United Kingdom? I am personally slightly sceptical about personalised carbon accounts, but industry, the CBI and a number of other bodies have spoken on a number of occasions about their concerns that business will be asked to take the lion’s share of pollution and emissions-reducing measures. My question is a probing one about the enabling legislation.

Phil Woolas: I share the hon. Lady’s views. “An idea ahead of their time” was the response of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Let me reassure the hon. Lady in two ways. First, we do not consider that the Bill would be the appropriate framework to introduce such a personal carbon-trading scheme, given the robust scrutiny by Parliament that such a scheme would rightly require.
I shall give the hon. Lady further assurance. Part 1 of the schedule sets out the procedure to be followed where regulations are made by a single national authority. It sets out the procedures for both Parliament and the devolved legislatures, in which support for the regulations is required. Part 2 sets out the process for regulation jointly made by the Secretary of State and/or Welsh Ministers and/or the relevant Northern Ireland Department. A separate arrangement applies to trading schemes that involve Scotland, which is covered by part 3 of the schedule.
Where the affirmative procedure applies, if either House of Parliament or a relevant devolved legislature does not approve the instrument, it cannot be made. That should cover the hon. Lady’s point. If the negative procedure applies, again if either House of Parliament or the relevant devolved legislature resolves that the regulation should be annulled, the instrument has no further effect and may be revoked by Order in Council. For those two reasons—common sense and procedural—the provisions satisfy her point. I asked for that point to be made as well.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4

Trading schemes: powers to require information

Question proposed, That the schedule be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I would like to revert to my earlier comments, without expanding too much on them. Reading schedule 4, it seems to assume and set out certain types of trading schemes—relating in particular to electricity suppliers and electricity distributors. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s conclusions questioned the EU emissions trading scheme already covering a large proportion of heavy industries and representing about half of UK emissions. Also, perhaps within that scheme, the Government propose to introduce a new carbon reduction commitment scheme under the enabling powers of the Bill. That raises an issue in addition to that of personal carbon allowances, which might be introduced.
The Minister could take this opportunity to answer the question of which sectors might remain that would be suitable for an emissions trading scheme established by secondary legislation. Can he think of any other possibilities? As I alluded to earlier, the Select Committee went on to conclude that the enabling powers perhaps should not be within the legislation if there were no other trading schemes or if the Government were unable to say which other trading schemes there might be. Without further elucidation from the Government at this stage, it seems an open-ended power. I would be grateful to the Minister for some clarification.

Phil Woolas: The schedule is designed to facilitate the carbon reduction commitment and applies to that. The difficulty is that this is legislation for a long time, so the hon. Lady is right to ask the question. We envisage that the new powers will support the introduction of the CRC, a cap-and-trace scheme, as I said, that will apply to large non-energy-intensive organisations in the public and private sectors. As I think I mentioned before, the powers may also be used to introduce a household energy supplier obligation to succeed the carbon emissions reduction target scheme, which ends in 2011. It is difficult, if not impossible, to specify at this stage how the powers may be used beyond that, as their purpose is to maintain flexibility in supporting activities that will enable us to meet the targets set out in the Bill.
The Bill sets out the framework for 2050, so we take the view that it is important that the powers to introduce further trading schemes exist, even if at this point it is not known how exactly they may be applied in the future. I hope that the procedural points that I made in answer to the hon. Lady’s question on the previous clause also apply here. In layperson’s terms, we do not know yet.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clauses 50 to 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55

Report on impact of climate change

Gregory Barker: I beg to move amendment No. 69, in clause 55, page 25, line 35, at end insert
‘including in particular the risks of harm to—
(a) the well-being of the population,
(b) the environment, including natural resources, biodiversity, living organisms and ecological systems of which they form part, and
(c) the economy.’.
Members of the committee will have heard me speak on more than one occasion over the past few sittings. Colleagues on the Opposition Benches have echoed my concern that the Bill does not give sustainability, particularly protection of the natural environment, the prominence that it deserves in decision making. Clause 55 requires the Government to prepare risk assessments and adaptation programmes in response to the dangers of climate change.
Although clause 55(2) requires programmes of action to further sustainable development, that duty as currently drafted will not secure adequate protection or enhancement for our natural environment, nor will it guarantee that the poor and vulnerable in society do not suffer disproportionately from the impacts of climate change. That is why we feel it necessary to state those requirements specifically in clause 55.
Precedent shows that stand-alone sustainable development duties unfortunately rarely delivered a step change in the sustainability of policies and practices on the ground, without additional legal underpinning. The Sustainable Development Commission recognised that fact in a recent review of sustainable development duties, of which there are now over 100 in law. We cannot afford to risk applying a meaningless or toothless duty to the Government in the case of adaptation policy. There are important decisions to be made in all sectors, which, if we get them wrong, will further erode our natural environment and resource base, but if we get them right, could help to protect and enhance those vital assets for the future.
The water sector provides a good illustration of that point. To be truly sustainable, responses to droughts and floods must work with and benefit from healthy wetland ecosystems and the services they provide, such as flood storage and water purification. Responses focused wholly on new hard floor flood defences can damage the environment further and reduce its ability to support human needs in the future, and will ultimately cost society more.
At present, while lip service is paid to sustainable approaches to adaptation of the water sector, there is no clear obligation on any part of the Government to ensure that they are put into place. To drive truly sustainable adaptation, the Bill needs to ensure that the Government take full account of the natural environment and the services that it provides, both when undertaking their risk assessments and designing their adaptation programme. We should also take full account of the risks posed to the poor when securing justice. The amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on particular risks of harm to our population, our environment, biodiversity and the health of our economy from the impacts of climate change.

Martin Horwood: I shall not detain the Committee for long. My only criticism of the amendment is that it is a bit of gold-plating. Surely the impact of climate change will be judged by a competent committee to include its impact on the well-being of the population and on the environment, including natural resources. However, there is no harm in specifying that in the Bill so I welcome the amendment.
Proposed paragraph (b), in particular, specifies the importance of natural resources,
“biodiversity, living organisms and ecological systems of which they form part”.
It is well-worded, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle on the phraseology used. The wider impact on ecosystems of our plans to respond to and adapt to climate change is important. It is not simply a process of reducing carbon emissions, but consideration of their total impact on our natural environment. That is a welcome clarification and would reinforce what might already be in the Bill.

Joan Ruddock: I am sorry that I shall have to resist the amendment, as I have been advised to do. I do not disagree with anything that the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle and for Cheltenham said. We all know that sustainable development is crucial to our work.

Joan Walley: In view of what my hon. Friend is saying about sustainable development, will she clarify what difference the world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg made so that we can ensure that we are doing everything we can to protect our natural resources and ecosystems not only in the United Kingdom, but globally?

Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend is right to refer to the extraordinary meeting in Johannesburg. I was fortunate to be present, and it has made an enormous difference to the world, particularly to some developed nations, such as our own, which, in our rush towards development, have so often neglected our natural environment. However, the lessons have been learned and, as she knows, they have been learned throughout the Government.
The amendment contains a list. Although it has the virtue of being shorter than some of the other lists included in the Bill and proposed in the other place, there is still a problem with it. All the factors listed would easily be included in any understanding of sustainable development. I know that it is boring repetition, but we have defined sustainable development as living within environmental limits that clearly cover biodiversity and ecosystems, and the achievement of a just society. That clearly includes realising the impacts on the most vulnerable and the poorest people, and we do that by means of a sustainable economy, good governance and sound science.
That is why, as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle acknowledged, clause 56(2) already requires the adaptation programme to contribute to sustainable development. My argument is that the amendment is unnecessary. It might seem to be harmless and benign, but it is unnecessary because we have in the Bill all the means for covering the aspects that the hon. Gentleman outlined.
The amendment would insert into the Bill a reference to particular factors in respect of the climate change risk report. Clause 55(1) already requires an assessment of the risks to the UK arising from climate change. Obviously, that means all risks, so potential climate risks would be covered, including the factors that the hon. Gentleman proposes. In a sense, by putting in a short list, the scope is reduced. Also, some issues, possibly including the built environment, would not easily fall under the list as currently worded.

Gregory Barker: Does the Minister not believe that the built environment is covered by the reference to the environment?

Joan Ruddock: There is a problem of understanding. Many people understand “the environment” to mean the green environment. In speaking to his own amendment about biodiversity and ecosystems, the hon. Gentleman was alluding primarily to the green environment, as distinct from the built environment. We want to ensure that the drafting of the Bill takes all possible factors into account.
It will, I hope, give the hon. Gentleman some comfort to know that we have already appointed our statutory advisers on the environment—Natural England, the Environment Agency and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. They will be part of the steering group for the work to ensure that sustainable development, especially the environment in the way that the hon. Gentleman intends it, is given due regard. I cannot accept amendment No. 69.

Gregory Barker: I am sorry to hear the Minister’s response. This is not a central feature of the legislation but it is important for the legislation to be clear to the layman. It should not require or presume a specialist knowledge of the jargon or the vocabulary of the environmental industry. People out there, our constituents, should be able to pick up any part of the Bill and understand it as much as possible on a stand-alone basis.
The inclusive list—which does not exclude anything, although I am sure we could tweak it to improve it—would contribute to the general understanding of the Bill. It is a welcome reminder that climate change embraces disparate topics from the well-being of the population through to the economy. It is important to remind people of that and not fall back on a rather ghastly piece of jargon, however well intended and well defined it may be. Sustainable development means many different things to many different people, however it is defined in the legislation. It is worth reiterating that we are concerned not only with the well-being of the population or our economy, but with biodiversity, living organisms and ecological systems. I am wearing my biodiversity tie today, just to prove the point.

Joan Ruddock: For the record, we are indeed concerned about all the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions.

Gregory Barker: I do not doubt that the Minister is concerned about those aspects, and I welcome her comments about the contribution that Natural England and the RSPB will make. However, I am talking about being clear in the Bill and ensuring that it makes sense as a stand-alone piece of legislation that the layman—our constituents—will readily understand. For that reason, I shall press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 19, in clause 55, page 26, line 5, at end insert—
‘( ) Before laying a report under this section before Parliament, the Secretary of State must take into account the advice of the Committee on Climate Change under section [Advice of Committee on Climate Change on impact report].’.
No. 20, in clause 55, page 26, line 8, leave out subsection (6).—[Joan Ruddock.]

Clause 55, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56

programme for adaptation to cimate change

Amendment made: No. 21, in clause 56, page 26, line 22, leave out subsection (3).—[Joan Ruddock.]

Clause 56, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 57

Report on progress in connection with adaptation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Joan Ruddock: We have already discussed in the debates on clause 35 and new clause 4 our proposals for a new role for the adaptation sub-committee in providing scrutiny of the implementation of the adaptation programme. In accordance with new clause 4, the Committee on Climate Change will look at progress on adaptation, as I have stressed before, as part of every second progress report under clause 35. Clause 36 will require the Government to respond to the Committee’s progress reports under clause 35. The effect of our package of amendments is to ensure that that reporting will happen more frequently than under the present clause 57. Now, the reporting will take place every 24 months, rather than every 30 months.
The reports on progress will now be conducted by independent experts, rather than by the Government, as I have previously explained. Given that the committee will now have that important role in scrutinising progress and adaptation and that the Government will be required to respond to every report, it is not necessary for the Government to produce separately their own report on progress on adaptation. That is, of course, what clause 57 presently provides. I therefore propose that clause 57 be deleted from the Bill.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 57 disagreed to.

Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59

Guidance by Secretary of State to reporting authorities

Martin Horwood: I beg to move amendment No. 72, in clause 59, page 27, line 24, at end insert—
‘( ) ensuring that proposals and policies for adaptation to climate change in the exercise of their functions contribute to sustainable development.’.
The amendment is on a similar theme to some of the other amendments that we have discussed, so I will not trouble the Committee for long. The amendment would make a correction in relation to a pretty clear requirement for the reporting authorities, as well as the Government, to pay attention to the concept of sustainable development. Clause 56(2), which is part of the Secretary of State’s programme for adaptation to climate change, contains a clear and admirable subsection that the Government have not tried to delete:
“The objectives, proposals and policies must be such as to contribute to sustainable development.”
That is admirable, but there is no equivalent obligation on the reporting authorities.
Under the instructions given in clause 59, the Secretary of State will simply ask the reporting authorities to prepare proposals and policies. That may seem somewhat like dancing on the head of a pin, but there are important parallels. As I mentioned before, a good example is flooding. An authority—for instance, one with responsibility for water, such as the Environment Agency with its flood risk analysis role, or water companies—could create a plan that adapted to climate change but not in a sustainable way.
I shall quote the RSPB, which, for example, said in response to droughts and floods:
“To be truly sustainable, responses to droughts and floods must work with, and benefit from, healthy wetland ecosystems and the services they provide, such as flood storage and water purification. Responses focussed wholly on new hard flood defences and increased ‘end of pipe’ treatment will damage the environment further, reduce its ability to support human needs in the future, and cost society more.”
I know from conversations that we have had only this week that the Minister accepts many of the arguments made by the RSPB and the Blueprint for Water coalition that we must take a holistic approach to issues such as flood defence, flood response and drought. Given that the Minister is not unsympathetic to that point of view and that we have an anomaly in the Bill—the Minister points to his hon. Friend—I hope that both Ministers are therefore equally sympathetic to the point of view advocated by the Blueprint for Water coalition and the RSPB and that they will embrace the amendment with open arms. I am sure that the Minister would not wish to refuse every reasonable amendment that the Opposition move in Committee.

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman for drafting and moving the amendment. The Committee will note that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle has made sustainable development a priority in his remarks in Committee. He spoke eloquently of its importance in his words on clause 55 and, more specifically, clause 13. Without wishing to pre-empt remarks on clause 60, we consider the topic of local co-operation and consideration in drawing up adaptation policies to be extremely important. That is why we are delighted and happy to support the amendment.
My hon. Friend made the case earlier in his discussion on amendment No. 55. When the Government or local government are drawing up plans for adaptation to climate change, they must be mindful of the need for sustainable development. The long-term view—the big picture—is what we are all looking towards. It is not just a case of “If you don’t like the heat stay out of the kitchen,” or “You can’t make an omelette without smashing eggs.” We believe that that would be a derogation of our responsibility as political leaders and policy makers, so I support my hon. Friend’s remarks on clause 55. When it comes to preparing for local adaptation issues, such as flooding, responses focused wholly on new hard flood defences can damage the environment further and reduce its ability to support human needs in the future and will ultimately cost society more.
I should like to make a personal plea to the Minister. The title of my constituency—Vale of York—suggests that I represent the low-lying areas around and north of York. In fact, it is probably about a 65 per cent. functional and an occasional flood plane. I am sad to say that following the next election, I shall no longer be able to speak for Vale of York. Despite its many mentions on the “Today” programme for its climate and weather conditions, Vale of York will be no more. I hope that she will look favourably on the amendment, because I believe that the way forward has to be local and small alleviation schemes such as the one that I propose. Through the good offices of the Environment Agency, the scheme is preventing Thirsk from flooding again by allowing the land upstream to flood and rewarding the landowner for letting it do so. I conclude by saying that there must be a responsibility on local policy makers to make decisions, while still considering the requirements of sustainable development and the long-term view.

Joan Ruddock: Well, sour voices indeed. The hon. Members try hard to tempt me into accepting the amendment.

Gregory Barker: The lady is not for turning.

Joan Ruddock: Yes. First, let me respond to the good arguments that the hon. Member for Cheltenham made about the fact that we cannot take a simplistic approach to adaptation and that many forms of adaptation may not be sustainable. One of the important things that we are doing through the Committee on Climate Change is to look at adaptation and mitigation, because a means of adaptation that creates greater quantities of emissions would interfere with our aims on mitigation. We agree with what he has said. It is true to say that, whereas hard defences were perhaps thought to be the only way forward for flood prevention and were often the preferred request of local people, we now know that there are more sophisticated ways in which we can try to protect areas and enable them to adapt to climate change. That means using the natural environment and working with it, rather than trying to resist, as in the case of rising sea levels. We are minded to take a holistic approach, and I am quite sure that my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for floods would reiterate that.

Martin Horwood: I am grateful to the Minister for her reassuring comments, but the purpose of the amendment is not about the Secretary of State or Ministers taking a holistic approach; it is about asking the reporting authorities to take a holistic approach as well. In that sense, it is a purely innocuous amendment, but one that might be useful to Ministers in trying to get the right result from their reporting authorities.

Joan Ruddock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think that he knows that many of the reporting authorities are guided by the Government’s strategy and are in receipt of considerable funds to carry out their plans, so the connection between the Government and the reporting authorities is important.
As I have repeated ad nauseam, adapting in ways that reinforce and deliver sustainable development is already well covered by the fact that the objectives, proposals and policy of the adaptation programme under clause 56 must contribute to sustainable development. A number of key reporting authorities, such as regional development agencies, Ofwat and Ofgem, are covered by the guidance and already have a duty to have regard to sustainable development.
I offer my assurances to the Committee that the statutory guidance for public bodies will provide guiding principles on sustainable ways in which to address climate risks. It will help public bodies and statutory undertakers to demonstrate that their adaptation plans consider sustainable development. That was set out in the briefing of my noble Friend Lord Rooker, which gave the key headings that we propose for the guidance. We will develop the guidance following the usual consultation processes so that it will reflect accurately the needs of stakeholders.
Stakeholders who represent a range of sustainable development issues will also be involved in the development of the guidance. When we have a fuller picture of the content of the guidance, we can decide more accurately how sustainable development will be reflected in it. We are also working closely with our statutory advisers—Natural England and the Environment Agency, members of which sit on the working group on developing the guidance—to ensure that we pay full regard to sustainable development. The challenges and opportunities raised by the need to adapt to climate change also encourage people to think about the interaction among the environment, society and the economy.
The forthcoming “adapting to climate change” website, and the summary document that will accompany it, will set out the Government’s adaptation programme and expand on how the five principles of sustainable development are interpreted with respect to adaptation. I must oppose the amendment, but I hope that my explanation has reassured the hon. Members for Vale of York and for Cheltenham.

Martin Horwood: I am somewhat reassured by the Minister’s words, although I remained mystified about why the Government insist on rejecting a series of Opposition amendments that would strengthen the hand of DEFRA in respect of other authorities. They are apparently so completely in line with the Government’s policy that Ministers think that they are unnecessary. I would have thought that there was no harm, but great advantage, in the Government accepting them. However, on the understanding that they will not support the proposal, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Martin Horwood: I beg to move amendment No. 78, in clause 59, page 27, line 25, at end add—
‘(3) The Secretary of State shall issue guidance to—
(a) the Health Protection Agency,
(b) the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets,
(c) the Water Services Regulation Authority,
(d) Natural England,
(e) the Marine and Fisheries Agency,
(f) Britishwaterways,
(g) the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment,
(h) the Statistics Board, and
(i) the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.’.

Peter Atkinson: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 79, in clause 68, page 31, line 16, leave out paragraph (a).

Martin Horwood: Amendment No. 78 reflects the worry that we have expressed at other stages during the Bill’s passage that the relative importance of DEFRA within the Government as a whole perhaps means that not all agencies and public bodies will have grasped what needs to be done. DEFRA has clearly had to cope with some of the impacts of climate change; arguably, the bluetongue epidemic would not have been possible had the average temperature of the country not been rising, because the infection would not have been able to thrive. Moreover, I am well aware of DEFRA’s role in the Gloucestershire floods last year and the importance of emergency planning on a cross-disciplinary basis, yet some of the agencies listed in the amendment might not have grasped the implications.
The purpose of amendment No. 78 is to put those agencies on notice that change will be required and that the provision will affect their work in a major way. It would make it clear, under the Bill, that they need to start working now on adaptation policy. I suppose that its one weakness compared with some of the other amendments that have been tabled is that the names of agencies tend to change every five minutes, and that many subsidiary amendments might be required each time the Government reorganise them. Nevertheless, it is important to be specific, and that was why we tabled the amendment.
Amendment No. 79 picks up on something rather peculiar in the Bill. Buried away on page 31, there is a list of bodies that do not count as reporting authorities. Some of those are straightforward: “either House of Parliament”—we can accept that—and devolved authorities and legislatures, which are dealt with in other ways in the Bill and form part of the whole structure. However, the list also exempts Ministers of the Crown, and we would like to remove that exemption. DEFRA is not the whole Government, and it seems reasonable that other Ministers should, from time to time, be asked by the Secretary of State to prepare a report on how they are adapting to climate change.
We have looked at some Departments that govern areas that are responsible for higher emissions than DEFRA. In terms of the impact on people’s well-being, it is again clear that DEFRA will not be responsible for many areas of government that will have to face the main impacts of climate change. The most obvious example is, of course, the Department of Health, where a repetition of the flood events would certainly involve public health issues—I declare a personal interest in that as my wife was the director of public health in Gloucestershire during the floods, and she and her NHS team worked hard to safeguard public health during that emergency. If such emergencies take place much more regularly, that will have a considerable impact on primary care trusts, foundation trusts and other NHS bodies.
If the model of bluetongue on the agricultural side is repeated for human beings, and what were previously tropical diseases start to invade these shores, the Department of Health will have to start planning for adaptation on a major scale. The Department for Transport will also have a major role to play. It might think that one way of adapting to climate change would be to provide plane flights in and out of Heathrow for people affected by climate change in other countries, but that would not be particularly appropriate. The Department for Communities and Local Government will be affected because of the impact of temperature change on existing housing stock and the necessity for local authorities to manage environmental health. There are major impacts with which other Government Departments will have to deal. Why should the Ministers in those Departments be exempt from the Secretary of State’s instructions to prepare policies and report back to Parliament on adaptation? That is a very strange exemption to have in the Bill, and I would like Ministers to justify it.

Anne McIntosh: It seems sensible for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the impact of climate change to all those authorities that are vital to the national effort to mitigate the effects of, and to adapt to, climate change. In particular, the involvement of the Health Protection Agency is very appropriate. I have a question for the hon. Member for Cheltenham. The amendment does not strike me as exhaustive. For example, why has the Environment Agency been left out? That is the most appropriate agency, as it is the body that would co-ordinate most recovery efforts and cleaning after a flood.

Martin Horwood: I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s comments. I would welcome specific additions to the list, but the Environment Agency already reports to DEFRA.

Anne McIntosh: There are others, such as English Heritage, which is a statutory body that is responsible for many of the most precious and valuable buildings. I was just making a comment.
Climate change would significantly affect human health, and hotter summers will particularly badly afflict the elderly and infirm. The Committee will recall that the 2003 summer heat wave caused an estimated 35,000 deaths across Europe. Thankfully, we do not have too many heat waves in northern Britain, but if such incidents become more frequent, we must ensure that there is optimum communication between our health authorities and the Government. Clearly, Natural England, the Marine and Fisheries Agency, the Water Services Regulation Authority and the other agencies listed in the amendment have a vital role to play in our efforts to mitigate and adapt.
On amendment No. 79, I would like to ask why a Minister of the Crown should be exempt from being considered a reporting authority for the purposes of clauses 59 to 67? Although I agree that the Secretary of State should not be empowered to issue guidance to or give direction to any reporting authorities that are devolved, or to Parliament as a whole, there does not appear to be any reason why the Secretary of State should not be able to issue advice or give direction to a fellow Government Minister. Will the Minister explain why she wishes to retain such a requirement in the Bill?

Joan Ruddock: I have already explained that the statutory guidance on adaptation will help reporting authorities to understand how to assess the risks of climate change and plan any related action.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham offers us a list, but makes a rather good argument for why there should not be a list, given the changing names. That goes to the heart of the issue: there can be a problem whenever there are lists in legislation. He needs to be assured that all reporting authorities will be covered. There was a short exchange about why the Environment Agency was not included, and the reason that he gave was that it reports to DEFRA. However, Natural England and British Waterways also report to DEFRA and they have been included. That illustrates the difficulties. We understand perfectly well the good reasons behind the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, but the difficulties of drawing up such lists have also been illustrated.
We propose issuing guidance to all reporting authorities, and any other organisation should be able to access that guidance freely. That will help to ensure greater consistency and robustness in the approach taken by reporting authorities. The guidance will also be publicly available, which we hope will mean that other organisations will have some interest in the guidance, even those that are not required and are not reporting authorities. That makes a specific list of organisations completely unnecessary.
Furthermore, specifying such a list in the Bill would send out the wrong signal to other crucial bodies that are not involved in adaptation by suggesting that they might not be as important as others in our efforts to try to become a well adapted United Kingdom. In trying to identify key bodies for adaptation, amendment No. 78 misses out important organisations, such as other parts of the health service, local authorities, infrastructure providers and so on. The amendment also includes some organisations that, although not unimportant—they are very important—do not have responsibility for delivering adaptation. I cite the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in that context.
We are committed to producing a strategy for the use of the reporting power in clause 60 within a year of Royal Assent, and will set out what we think are the priority bodies at that time. That will be done in consultation with those bodies and through a study of the existing capacity and tools to address adaptation. We believe that that is a better approach than simply listing bodies. We plan to consult on the guidance, alongside our strategy for use of the adaptation reporting power, early next year. Perhaps those comments make it clear why we need to resist that particular listing.
Let me turn to amendment No. 79. As we discussed on earlier clauses, climate change is an issue for not just DEFRA, but the whole of Government, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said and as has been echoed elsewhere in the Committee. That is even more the case with adaptation, because all sectors of the economy and society are likely to be affected to some degree by the physical impacts of climate change. The definition of reporting authorities that we have adopted in the Bill is therefore intentionally wide to capture all relevant bodies that need to take action. Both hon. Gentlemen referred to the question of Ministers of the Crown not being included in the definition of reporting authorities. Amendment No. 79 suggests altering the Bill so that they are included, so I must look at what that would do.
We believe that the amendment is both unnecessary and constitutionally peculiar. It is unnecessary because the Government already have express duties under clauses 55 and 56 to assess the risks from climate change and to draw up programmes of action, which would encompass action across all areas of central UK Government activity. The amendment simply duplicates those fundamental requirements of the Bill. Frankly, there is little point in giving the Secretary of State a power to ask himself to do what he is already required to do. We will resist the amendments, which would ensure that all Ministers and Departments across Government were listed as the hon. Gentleman suggests, because we believe that we have the working mechanisms within Cabinet government to deliver what is required. Cabinet government is an effective way of ensuring that such policy issues are addressed in a joined-up manner and that decisions can be taken collectively.
Just for the information of the Committee, all Departments already work on adapting to climate change—we are not waiting for the Bill to provide for that. Ministers in every Department are doing such work. I am the Minister with responsibility for adaptation in DEFRA and I have bilaterals with my colleagues. I can assure the Committee that the Department of Health, the Department for Transport and the Department for Communities and Local Government—I think that that Department was mentioned—are working on that issue. They have much to tell us, not least of their proposals, which I can assure hon. Members are sustainable.

Martin Horwood: On the specific issue of the Department of Health—I again refer the Committee to the personal interest that I declared earlier—there are highly developed action and contingency plans in every primary care trust across the country for the human variant of avian flu, which is a potential catastrophe. Whole conferences have been held. Can the Minister give one example of equivalent planning that has been attached to anything to do with adaptation to climate change?

Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment helpfully suggests to me that he believes that our plans on flooding have progressed in that direction. I would also say to the hon. Gentleman that adaptation is something of a new science. To apply it in a sustainable way, which is what we are all concerned about, will require a great deal of research, effort and learning by everyone in government. We cannot expect adaptation to have already been sorted; there would then be no point in having the Bill and all that goes with it. Adaptation is something that we will have to work on consistently over many years into the foreseeable future. It is not something that is done and dusted, and on which we get a report and that is the end of it. The work will continue for many years across the Government. We would not expect to have complete packages at this stage.
We are saying clearly that the adaptation sub-committee of the Climate Change Committee will examine the Government’s progress on delivering adaptation, provide independent and expert advice on what further action the Government need to take, and deliver that advice. As I have said, Departments are already working closely together and will soon be launching the adaptation website to communicate the Government’s overall approach to responding to the impact of climate change, and to provide a useful framework for developing the programme, including a practical toolkit for use by organisations to help them to adapt to climate change. That will include future priorities for each Department. I was reminded that the Department of Health undertook work in response to the heat waves in 2003, which led to about 2,000 deaths. It has carried out a great deal of planning to deal with the health effects of heat waves that might occur.
We shall include future priorities for each Department and demonstrate the joined-up approach that is taken. We will also publish an accompanying document summarising the cross-Government programme. I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Member for Cheltenham that all Departments will be engaged in the normal way and that there is no need for the amendment.

Martin Horwood: The Minister’s critique of amendment No. 78 was well informed, as I would expect. I accept that the list is not perfect and that it might contain inconsistencies. However, the fact that it is not as comprehensive as it could be is not an argument against having a list. Some complex and diverse organisations in the further reaches of the Government might think that, in some way, this is not their problem.
I am less reassured and convinced by the hon. Lady’s critique of amendment No. 79. We are trying to construct a framework for the Government’s policy that will be resilient to short-term political storms and calculations. She said that the plans for adaptation would encompass actions by other Ministers and that the Secretary of State for EFRA could report on them. However, encompassing other people’s plans is not the same as issuing guidance and using all the expertise and resources at DEFRA’s disposal to encourage, or even to direct, other Ministers to get a move on and develop plans.
The Department of Health provides a salutary lesson in such matters. We are all starting to talk about adaptation on a grand scale. We would assume that everyone had dealt with mitigation long ago and had been thinking about it for many years, yet the Department of Health issued its first consultation on the response of the NHS to climate change mitigation issues only in the past month. That was a slow response.

Tony Baldry: The Minister did not raise the matter, so my understanding might be out of date, but the Crown is indivisible. One Secretary of State cannot prosecute another Secretary of State because they are all part of the Crown. Our constitution is based on the concept of a collective Government. We cannot have a position in which one Secretary of State is trundling off to the High Court to sue another Secretary of State. The proceedings would be struck up as the Crown suing the Crown, but perhaps I have misunderstood the basic principles of constitutional law.

Martin Horwood: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s learned intervention. The clause does not refer to anyone taking legal action against anyone else, but to issuing guidance. If Ministers are not allowed to issue guidance to each other, that must be news to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Tony Baldry: The sanction in any legislation is ultimately judicial review, and that works only if there is a sanction. This would necessitate one Secretary of State seeking a sanction against another Secretary of State if one believes that the other has not issued suitable guidance or complied with the terms of the Act.

Martin Horwood: Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his well-informed intervention. I understand his point, but it is an unduly pessimistic scenario in which one can issue guidance only if it is backed up by a legal sanction. However, given the Minister’s comments and her uncharacteristic reluctance to accept our positive suggestions once again, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 60

Directions by Secretary of State to prepare reports

Gregory Barker: I beg to move amendment No. 105, in clause 60, page 27, line 42, at end add—
‘(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) make provision requiring reporting authorities to co-operate with other reporting authorities in the provision of information and the preparation of any report under this section.
(b) make provision as to the arrangements for such co-operation.’.
The amendment would place a duty on local authorities to co-operate on adaptation—

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

On resuming—

Gregory Barker: If I may refresh the Committee’s memory, the amendment would place a duty on local authorities to co-operate on adaptation. That is important because there is a gap in the Bill whereby councils may be substantially deficient in their ability to prepare for the effects of climate change if they do not have access to information from other reporting authorities. The amendment seeks to bridge that gap by facilitating the pooling of information between public bodies and ensuring their co-operation with councils so that local areas are adequately prepared for the effects of climate change planning.
Councils are unique in that they have close access to local information on infrastructures and the ability to produce comprehensive, detailed and accurate reports that will be greatly beneficial to central Government. While local government has the capacity to report on its estates and services under its direct control, it is not in a position to chase and collate information from non-council public authorities, by which I mean former public utilities such as water, electricity or gas supply companies.
Moreover, if councils are required to make a report, they need the power to require relevant, reliable and timely co-operation from non-council public authorities. The prevention of flooding is a key example of an area in which the amendment would be mutually beneficial to both public bodies and local councils.
As was demonstrated by last summer’s floods, a number of public bodies are involved in operations to deal with the consequences of floods and with flood prevention. To achieve that, it is essential that the relevant bodies are able to impart information and collaborate in investigations to root out the causes of the floods. However, to resolve the problem successfully in all cases, it is necessary that they explain their actions and work with local authorities to make improvements.
The ineffectiveness of the current process was demonstrated last summer in Leeds, when the city council was able to access Yorkshire Water’s sewer records only on a stand-alone basis. It was not permitted to superimpose that data against its own information to gain a fuller picture of surface water drainage. Unsurprisingly, it is difficult to investigate drainage problems holistically when the various records can be seen only in isolation. That strikes me as an inefficient use of data, when sharing information at no real expense to either third party would have had distinct benefits for tackling flooding.
It is clear that there is a need for those who have a statutory duty to keep drainage records to also have a duty to share such records with other related organisations. For example, the effective maintenance and upkeep of drainage infrastructure requires those bodies responsible to maintain adequate records to highlight any risks. By sharing and collating that information, all the facts required would be in place to make an accurate assessment of how such infrastructure should be maintained and by whom. The experience of Hull city council, in an area that suffered severely from floods last summer, is a prime example. The draining system was overwhelmed and an independent report investigating the floods subsequently highlighted that the lack of information on the ownership of watercourses and their maintenance regimes resulted in there being no sole agency or combined body in control.
It is not enough simply to assume that non-council reporting authorities, through central guidance, will in all cases take reasonable steps to co-operate and respond effectively with councils. It is thus necessary to underpin effective action with statutory obligations. As we remember the appalling floods that damaged parts of the country so badly on two occasions last year, and we are mindful of the fact that much of the human misery caused was preventable through better co-operation between public bodies and councils, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

Joan Ruddock: Amendment No. 105 recognises and highlights the importance of co-operation in producing adaptation reports. In that sense, we agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said in support of his amendment. There is a need for co-operation. When it is essential for a successful approach to adapting to climate change, we have already put a number of measures into the Bill to ensure co-operation between relevant reporting authorities. Our approach is measured and proportionate to the task.
The Secretary of State’s and Welsh Ministers’ guidance to reporting authorities will include co-operation, as set out in clause 59(1)(c). Additionally, clause 60(2) already provides for the power to request joint reports from reporting authorities. When considering which public bodies should be subject to directions to prepare adaptation reports, we will consider which other bodies should be subject to similar directions to ensure that each sector is undertaking adequate assessments of climate risk and that particular areas of the country are covered properly in a joined-up way.
I have sought advice on the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised about the floods. I am told that the powers in the Bill require reporting authorities to co-operate, and that will specifically include sharing information. It is clear that what I am saying in general would cover the case that he has raised because of the specific requirement to share information. With that duty to co-operate and share information, and the power to direct authorities to produce joint reports, which would require them to bring their information together, I believe that we already have in the Bill a set of measures that provides a strong framework and offers a more proportionate response to ensuring that there is appropriate co-operation between reporting authorities in producing the adaptation report.
I understand that the amendment was well meant and the purpose behind it. I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Gentleman that the Bill provides what he seeks.

Gregory Barker: I appreciate the Minister’s words about the amendment. Given that this is an important area and that there have been practical examples of where a lack of co-operation has had a bad effect on local ability to deal with severe weather, which will only increase with the onset of climate change, we would have liked the Bill to contain a more clearly stated obligation on local authorities to co-operate on adaptation. However, I heard what the Minister said about the obligations being diffused elsewhere in the legislation. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 61

Compliance with Secretary of State’s directions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: My questions pertain directly to clause 61 and this part of the Bill, but they also have relevance to other measures in the Bill.
The Government stated in their command paper on the draft Bill that the legislation places a legal duty on the Government to ensure that the UK meets its targets and stays within the limits of its carbon budgets. Clause 61 gives the Secretary of State a duty to
“publish the report in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
Subsection (1) states:
“A reporting authority must comply with any directions under section 60.”
Will the Minister explain how the Government could be required to take remedial action by order of a court? Will the directions of the Secretary of State be justiciable and legally enforceable? Will they be subject to judicial review?
If the Bill—particularly clause 61 and, indeed, the whole part on adaptation—is to have legal effect at all, it is important that there should be a possibility of a challenge. This relates to some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury. In its report on the draft Bill, the Select Committee said that if what the Government seek to achieve is to mean anything at all, there should be legal sanctions and the possibility for a case to be taken before a court of law.

Joan Ruddock: I hope that I can satisfy the hon. Lady by giving her a very direct answer: yes, the directions will be legally enforceable. It may be helpful to the Committee if I say that the clause means that a reporting authority that has been given directions to produce a report by the Secretary of State is under a duty to comply with those directions.
Furthermore, the clause requires that reporting authorities must have regard, as far as is relevant, to the Government’s reports under clause 55, which deals with the national climate change assessment, and under clause 56, which deals with the UK adaptation programme. That will ensure that reporting authorities factor in the latest information about climate impacts in the UK and take into consideration Government priorities and policies on adaptation. I hope that the hon. Lady is satisfied with the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 62 to 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 69

Waste reduction schemes

Joan Ruddock: I beg to move amendment No. 103, in clause 69, page 32, line 40, leave out ‘may only be brought’ and insert ‘come’.

Peter Atkinson: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 104.

Joan Ruddock: I assure the Committee that the amendments are small and technical. Perhaps it is unfortunate that we have not yet had the debate on waste incentives as it might not be entirely clear why we have tabled these amendments. We have done so to remove the link that exists between regulation-making powers relating to waste reduction schemes and the orders that will designate authorities as pilot areas. Within the proposals of this part of the Bill, we wish to see pilots undertaken by local authorities on waste reduction incentive schemes. For example, the regulations might be needed to allow local authorities to show waste charges and rebates on the council tax bill, or to enable them to collect outstanding charges more effectively through the county court and in relation to appeals processes. Under the existing drafting, the legislation prevents any such regulations being laid in Parliament until orders are made designating pilot authorities.
The amendments will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations using the relevant powers before the pilot authorities are formally designated. That will ensure that authorities interested in piloting a waste reduction scheme can be provided with a clear legislative framework by the time they are formally designated as pilots. As is the position at the moment, the regulations will not have any effect until the pilots are designated, and the amendments do not change the scope of the existing regulation-making powers set out in schedule 5.
I hope that I can assure the Committee that these are minor and technical amendments that will ensure that the Government can provide certainty for the pilot authorities, rather than them having to wait for the making of the designation orders.

Gregory Barker: I have taken what the Minister said on board. These are tidying-up amendments and they are relevant only in light of our debate on the Government and Opposition amendments that follow. I do not propose to delay our discussion. We will deal with the more substantive changes to schedule 5 in the next group of amendments. [Interruption.]

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: It is good to note, Mr. Atkinson, that even those in the highest echelons can sometimes be caught unawares by electronic devices.
This is our first opportunity to discuss this part of the Bill. I do not wish to take issue with what the Government are proposing, but this is a Bill on climate change. It is interesting to see that this part has been added to the Bill, so I wonder whether the Minister will explain why that has happened. This part of the Bill—clause 69 onwards—does not seem relevant to climate change. That does not mean that matters to do with waste disposal and energy from waste cannot help to reduce emissions, but the measure seems very heavily geared towards the domestic household.
In a few moments we will move on to schedule 5, but the issue is more about what is not in clause 69. I would like to have seen some review and emphasis of the EU packaging directive to show that the Government are on course to reduce packaging. I am concerned that, in respect of Government approaches to things, we seem to penalise the end user every time yet, in many instances, the end user has no control over the packaging, particularly in respect of supermarkets and food. I should like to have seen some reference in clause 69 and related clauses to other waste issues, including food waste and anaerobic digestion. Many other issues could have been dealt with under this part of the Bill, especially in clause 69, so why did the Government not do so?

Steve Webb: I agree with what the hon. Member for Vale of York says. Inevitably, as we discuss the succeeding clauses, we will dwell in great detail on the sorts of schemes that local authorities might run with regard to residual domestic waste, incentives on householders, and the things that councils can do to penalise or reward people. This is probably the right place, under the general heading of waste reduction schemes, to probe the Minister on the thing that our constituents say to all hon. Members: “We’d throw less away if, when we left the supermarket, there was less in our trolleys and shopping bags.”
It is unfortunate that the scope of the waste reduction schemes covered by clause 69 is limited, under schedule 5, to just domestic schemes. Householders have limited control over a lot of the residual waste that we will be talking about. They can do something about it, but are often lumbered with it. We should now be asking the Government what their part of the bargain is regarding the duties that they are placing on manufacturers and retailers to minimise packaging and waste generally.
We will be focusing overwhelmingly on what the householder can do and what sticks and carrots councils can apply to them, but this is the right point in the Bill to ask the Government what they are going to do to make it easier for householders to avoid the sticks and to benefit from the carrots.

Nick Hurd: I add my voice to those expressing disappointment that the Government have chosen to bolt this on to the Bill. This is an enormously important and groundbreaking Bill. It only has one value and that is as a framework Bill designed to put in place a much better process for setting targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, revising those targets and holding the Government of the day to account for performance on meeting those targets. We hope that the Bill will be scrutinised around the world. It would have been much better to have kept it pure in purpose, but the Government have not been able to resist the urge to add a few more baubles on to the Christmas tree, which dilutes the value of the Bill.
I am interested in why it was necessary to add this provision to the Bill and whether there was consideration of other mechanisms to introduce legislation that would have enabled what are, in effect, some pilot projects in local authority areas. The measures dilute the Bill, so why were they necessary?

Joan Ruddock: I shall respond to the last point first. I am asked why it is necessary to add to the Bill. I am surprised that Opposition Members do not see the connection between reducing waste and climate change. Waste in this country has, historically, gone to landfill, thus causing an immense problem with the production of methane, which Committee members have drawn to our attention as a more potent gas than even CO2.
The problem involving huge quantities of waste and methane is of enormous concern in relation to mitigation. There is an absolute necessity to reduce what goes into landfill, and that is why the proposals are in the Bill.

Gregory Barker: With the greatest respect, I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood doubted that for a minute. He was simply saying, “Why pick on waste?” Why is there no provision in the Bill for carbon capture and storage? Why is there no provision in the Bill for microgeneration and feed-in tariffs? Why is there nothing in the Bill to promote combined heat and power? Why does the Bill not address the expansion of Heathrow airport? Why does the Bill not address energy efficiency? The list goes on and on, so my hon. Friend made a good point.

Joan Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman has just given a list of all the things that are bound to be considered when the Government seek to mitigate emissions from the various sectors that he has just described. The measure is being proposed because it does not exist elsewhere. We are the only country in the EU15 that does not allow local authorities to charge for some aspects of waste removal. There is a strong reason behind the measure. It comes before us because local government asked central Government to make such powers available to local government.
As Conservative Members know, their party controls a significant number of local authorities, and the Local Government Association, which is Conservative-controlled, has an environment committee, the chair of which is Paul Bettison, who is well known to us all. He said in response to a Communities and Local Government Committee report:
“This report rightly points out that it is only councils, in consultation with local people, who can decide the best system for collecting waste and boosting recycling rates. Although pilot schemes are a step in the right direction, the power should be there for all councillors to reward hard working families who do their bit for the environment...The Government should bring forward amendments to the Climate Change Bill to give councils the power to introduce incentive schemes as the Committee has recommended.”
It seems that the chair of the Local Government Association’s environment committee is enthusiastic that such measures should be in the Bill.
As I said at the outset, waste in landfill is a major problem. It is not sustainable, and 3 per cent. of all UK greenhouse gas emissions come from methane from biodegradable waste in landfill. Waste reduction schemes may have an important role to play in encouraging people to throw away less and to recycle more.
The hon. Member for Vale of York asked why there was concentration on domestic households and what the Government were doing to try to persuade those who produce so much packaging waste to produce less and to decrease what I acknowledge is enormous frustration among householders about the packaging waste issue. First, she mentioned the EU packaging directive. As she is aware, there are two: one is concerned with the recycling of the waste that is produced, and the other is concerned with minimisation of waste. In Brussels, we have pressed very hard for more to be done on the minimisation of waste. We do not believe that that directive has worked well, and we have pressed for action on it. That has not been forthcoming to date, but we always hope.
In the meantime, we have tried to agree voluntary arrangements with major retailers, and I am pleased to record that those who have entered into the voluntary Courtauld agreement have done so on the basis that there will be at least an end to the growth in packaging waste by the end of this year, and a reduction by 2010. In the meantime, on the advice of the Waste and Resources Action Programme, which is funded by the Government, there has been the lightweighting of packaging and a reduction in its amount in ways that, unfortunately, consumers often cannot see. In defence of retailers, some packaging is necessary, and some good work has been done, but there is a great deal more to do. We are pursuing that in every way.
The hon. Member for Vale of York also asked about food waste, which is one of the most extraordinary aspects of our society. We throw into the waste stream a third of all the food that we purchase, and that is costing UK citizens £10 billion a year. That is a horrific waste at this time. We want to do more about that across Government. We are making considerable inroads with the “Love Food Hate Waste” programme, which was launched by myself and the Waste and Resources Action Programme. We are aware that the public are particularly sensitive to the issue at this time, and they are receiving these messages about reducing food waste and the necessity of doing so.
As I have dealt with all the questions, I will return to what we are trying to do in the Bill. Local authorities asked for such opportunities. We know that they have made progress, but they want to do more, and we need them to do more. Over the past 10 years, recycling rates have quadrupled and they now stand at around 33 per cent. As hon. Members will know, we still lag far behind much of Europe and that is why we need to do more. Householders have a vital role to play. Municipal waste accounts for more than a quarter of the waste sent to landfill in England, and household waste forms a large part of that.
To enable us to do more, we need to try out new possibilities. We cannot afford to sit back and say that things will never work, especially when research shows that waste reduction schemes really help. We know that from other countries. A particularly good example is Sweden where, in one of its municipalities, residual waste as a result of such schemes fell by 45 per cent. in the first year of the scheme, and waste separated for recycling or composting rose by 49 per cent.
Likewise, in Seattle, where householders pay according to the size of their bin, recycling tonnages have increased by 60 per cent., and participation in recycling has increased by 80 per cent. That is undoubtedly why local authorities have proposed to Government that they should have the opportunity to incentivise householders to reduce the amount of waste that they produce and to recycle more. The Bill proposes that we allow up to five local authorities to pilot schemes. However, those schemes will not have been tried in this country before, which is why this is a very modest proposal.
We want to learn from the pilots and from the response of both the authorities and the public. Once we have evaluated the impact of the pilots, we will be in a position to decide whether or not to roll out the powers more widely.
Clause 69 introduces schedule 5, which provides the legislative framework for waste collection authorities to set up a waste reduction—or a waste incentive—scheme. Householders who throw away the least will receive a rebate from the local authority and, under some schemes, but not necessarily all, householders who throw away the most will pay more.
Under the schemes, many people will be better off. That is because any money that is received by the councils in charges will have to be paid back to residents. That is on the basis of the condition called revenue-neutrality. Overall, residents do not pay any more to the authority.

Gordon Banks: I wonder whether the Minister will explain her point about some householders paying more and some paying less. Is it based on how many people inhabit a house? A house with two occupants would have a different “budget” to houses with four or five occupants.

Joan Ruddock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The whole point of having pilots is to try to work out a fair system. Concern has been expressed that larger households will produce more waste than smaller ones. Strangely enough, research shows that proportionately, smaller households produce as much waste, and occasionally more. It is quite complicated, because we have a lot of research under way, which WRAP has undertaken. In the case of those schemes, the pilot authorities must have regard to vulnerable households, which could include larger households. It is quite possible, whatever the design of the scheme, that there would be an allowance for larger households.

Martin Horwood: I am not arguing against permissive powers, and in general we favour the freedom of local authorities to experiment with the consent of their electors. As well as larger households—in other words, families with children—there is also the issue of small households that might not have the space to compost organic waste or put it in relatively smelly wormeries. In one case, they do not have sufficient space in a small flat, and in the other they would almost certainly break their tenancy agreement and act against the interests of public health. Does she accept that that is also an issue and that the guidelines on social justice in that respect need to be drawn pretty broadly?

Joan Ruddock: Indeed; the hon. Gentleman has made a sensible comment. We know that the schemes are operating in many other countries that clearly have a spectrum of household composition and home types, just as we have in this country. It would be for the local authority that sought to pilot the scheme to look at all of that and at their own demographics. It would perhaps choose one part of the authority where it would do the pilot and decide that other parts were not suitable. All of that is possible, and we expect the authorities that come forward to take all those issues into account.
I want to complete what I was saying on revenue neutrality. A further protection for residents exists, as authorities will need to keep a separate account of charges and rebates under the scheme, which will allow residents to assure themselves that the revenue neutrality requirement is being kept, which is enormously important. A huge amount of hostile press has been generated, I am sorry to say, by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), who speaks for the Opposition on communities and local government. He has suggested that this is some form of stealth tax and that people could be subject to huge payments—I have ever seen a figure of £1,000 a year quoted, which is absolutely ludicrous. We have made it clear that we want the schemes to be revenue neutral and transparent, that it is essential that residents buy into them and that there will be a communications strategy. That is all very clear. Also, the indicative amounts that we have mentioned for such schemes have been of the order of £50, which is nothing like what has been suggested.
As I have said, local authorities would have to take account of groups that could be unduly disadvantaged, provide a good kerbside recycling service, implement a fly-tipping prevention strategy and communicate with local people. While providing a good level of protection for householders, we are also keen to provide authorities with flexibility and options to ensure that schemes are efficient and effective on the ground, as I have indicated. Local authorities will be free to design schemes that suit local circumstances and integrate rebates or charges with the administration of a council tax system, if they so choose.
We have really gone past the point when we can simply sit back and watch landfill sites fill up and belch out methane emissions. We have to try new measures, and it is only responsible for us to respond to the wishes of local authorities that have proposed, like other countries in continental Europe, that they should have the opportunity to have such schemes. It is a matter of extreme regret that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar has warned local authorities in a letter that councils that introduce “bin taxes” will be vilified in the popular press and punished at the polls. He stated:
“Nationally, we will not hesitate to criticise any supposedly-Conservative council which collaborates with the Labour Ministers”.
I hope that Opposition Front Benchers in Committee will disassociate themselves from that threat to local authorities, which is nothing but bullying and undermining democratic accountability.
Piloting is a sensible way of trying out these new measures and testing them in a UK context, as it will add to our understanding and that of the public and local authorities. After the pilots, we will be able to make a well-founded decision on whether to make the powers available to more local authorities.
I thought I had answered all the questions, but it has been suggested that perhaps I have not—helpful notes are being passed to me, but I think I have dealt with the matter. However, I am told—this is a useful point—that the packaging directive targets will save more than 8 million tonnes of CO2 this year alone. I should also say something that I did not mention before: earlier this year, I increased the recovery rates from forms of packaging in this country.

Anne McIntosh: As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle has just said from a sedentary position, this is a technical amendment—unless I am confusing it with an earlier one. This has been a timely and helpful debate. The Government got it wrong—not in signing up to the EU landfill directive, but in signing up and committing the United Kingdom to the landfill directive before we had alternative waste disposal schemes in place. That is something that is going to cost all of us dearly.
The Minister’s response to the debate is a little bit unfair and disingenuous on the householder, because the householder is not in control of how products reach them—I accept that they are in control of the amount of food that they waste. However, when a consumer is shopping in a supermarket, they do not have control over the packaging or what will ultimately be waste. Let us consider unsolicited mail, which is a growing curse. Of course, I do not mean our election leaflets, but, for example, the free newspaper that comes around or other things that one does not wish to see cross one’s door.

Joan Ruddock: I assure the hon. Lady that we are trying to work across every front on that issue. She is right, and we are discussing that matter with the direct mail organisation. We hope to have new agreements on that, and we are trying to discourage the proliferation of material. The householder does have some control. Some people choose to shop and buy loose goods rather than heavily packaged goods. Clearly, we should boycott those goods that are most heavily packaged.

Anne McIntosh: To a large extent, we are in broad agreement. I remember visiting a direct mail factory during one of my election campaigns, which caused some consternation apropos my earlier remarks. We all want less waste to go to landfill, but the Government have wasted an opportunity, because they could have educated the public on alternative means of waste disposal, particularly incineration, energy from waste, combined heat and power, or anaerobic digestion—I do not care what we call it. The public seem to go into freefall whenever a local council comes out with a policy that involves smoke or burning, whether it is in Guildford, where bizarrely the Liberal Democrats opposed an incinerator, or in Sheffield, where they proposed one.

Joan Ruddock: The hon. Lady is right; there is a need for public education. It is now accepted that no serious health effects result from incineration. That has been dealt with—not least, by Government. In addition, £2 billion of PFI credits are available for waste infrastructure and there is no prohibition on any form of scheme. Some are coming forward as incinerators, and £10 million is available for anaerobic digesters.

Anne McIntosh: I have recently received a briefing from North Yorkshire county council, and councils seem to be well apprised. The Minister has referred to the need to guard against fly-tipping, which causes great concern in rural areas.

Peter Atkinson: Order. I remind the Committee that we are talking about waste reduction, not waste disposal, either through incineration or fly-tipping.

Anne McIntosh: I hate to say, “I told you so”, to the Minister. There were two warnings about the problems that clause 60 could bring, which the Government do not seem to have heeded. One warning was in the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government report on refuse collection, which was issued on 16 July 2007. The Committee was
“not convinced that enough work has been done or guidance given to local authorities on how to prevent such risks from blighting areas and causing disputes.”
The same Committee’s second special report on “Refuse Collection: Waste Reduction Pilots” in February this year recommended that
“the Government withdraw its financial incentive pilot proposals from the Climate Change Bill and reconsider devolving the power to introduce schemes to local authorities themselves.”
Would the Minister like to comment on why she did not follow their advice?

Joan Ruddock: What we saw in the CLG Committee reports was far greater ambition than has come from local government. The suggestion that there should be a specific waste-charging system, analogous to a utility, is not one that has found favour with local government. That is why local government, in presenting suggestions to central Government about what might be done, has looked to do something that is clearly much more of a halfway house than the CLG Committee would have wished.

Anne McIntosh: Finally, just for the record, I believe that the Government’s approach of having a limited trial and a limited pilot project—I think that five are ongoing—for which the Government have been criticised, has allowed hostile media coverage.

Joan Walley: Despite the recommendations in the CLG Committee report, is there not a real sense of urgency about not only carbon but the availability of landfill sites? It is important that we make a start and see how those pilots can inform what is needed.

Anne McIntosh: That is a helpful intervention. As I said at the outset, the problem is that the Government signed up to impossible targets. I am in total agreement about reducing waste going to landfill, but it is impossible to ask councils to meet those targets, if there are not alternative sites. If we look at what is happening in Naples, I can only assume that the Italian Government are having exactly the same difficulty as our own.

Joan Ruddock: We are on target for the reduction in waste going to landfill from households for 2010, and we are entirely optimistic about 2013. The reason why we are making so much money available to encourage much greater provision of waste disposal infrastructure is because the 2020 target is challenging. However, we are content that we know what we are doing, and we certainly have no expectation of ending up in a Naples situation.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister will be aware that my colleague, whom I now refer to as David Davis, called his by-election, which will take place on Thursday one week hence, precisely on issues such as intrusion by inspectors, which relates to these proposals. I hope that the powers given to local council inspectors for policing the arrangement will not come back to haunt the Government.

Joan Ruddock: There is no suggestion that this scheme will be a massive intrusion into people’s lives. There is no suggestion that this scheme will be a massive intrusion into people’s lives. As I have stressed, it has been done across Europe and north America. Residents have accepted such schemes perfectly well in other countries. When the proposals were put to people in a poll, we found that about 60 per cent. of people felt them to be entirely fair.
I bring the hon. Lady back to the purpose of this measure: people who do their duty by recycling and reducing their residual waste should be rewarded, and those who do not subscribe to the law could have a charge placed on them, if the local authority so chooses.

Anne McIntosh: We are grateful to have had the opportunity to place our concerns on the record, and I am grateful to the Minister for her response.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 69, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5

Waste reduction schemes

Peter Atkinson: I note that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border is not available to move amendment No. 108. Does another member of the Committee wish to move it?

Gregory Barker: I beg to move amendment No. 108, in schedule 5, page 69, line 3, at end insert—
‘(d) the authority proposes to collect residual domestic waste at least once in every seven days, and
(e) the authority proposes to collect all recyclable material, including tetrapak materials, polystyrene and all plastics.’.

Peter Atkinson: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 109, in schedule 5, page 69, line 32, at end insert
‘but no charges for residual domestic waste can be imposed unless the authority has made provision to collect all other materials not less than once every 14 days, including, (i) all plastics of whatever type, (ii) polystyrene, (iii) paper and card of all descriptions including tetrapak, (iv) glass and (v) metal and aluminium.’.
Amendment No. 107, in clause 70, page 33, line 19, at end insert—
‘(c) does not include a power to create a criminal penalty on any householder for non-compliance with any aspect of a waste reduction scheme.’.
New clause 18—Waste authority’s power to reduce amount of council tax payable—
‘After section 13A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (c. 14) there is inserted—
“13B Power to reduce amount of tax payable in relation to household waste
(1) Where a person is liable to pay council tax in respect of any chargeable dwelling and any day, any waste collection authority or waste disposal authority may require the billing authority for the area in which the dwelling is situated to reduce the amount which he is liable to pay as respects the dwelling and the day to such extent as it thinks fit.
(2) The power under subsection (1) may only be exercised in connection with measures to reduce the amount of residual domestic waste produced in the authority’s area.
(3) The power under subsection (1) may be exercised in relation to particular cases or by determining a class of case in which liability is to be reduced to an extent provided by the determination.
(4) Where an authority exercises the power under subsection (1) the authority must pay or allow to the billing authority if requested an amount equivalent to the total reduction in the amount of tax payable each year as a result together with the reasonable administration costs of making such reductions.”’.

Gregory Barker: My right hon. Friend has been delayed in the main Chamber, but this is an issue that he feels strongly about. I am sure that he would want some discussion of it in the Committee.
There is little doubt outside the Committee that waste is an issue that always seizes the public interest—my constituents certainly talk about it. Locally, there is still concern about the regularity of collections, about what one can and cannot put in the recycling bin and about the ever-increasing amount of waste that our homes seem to produce. Overall, I am always struck by how genuinely enthusiastic most people are about recycling. People like to do it. Parents enjoy showing their children what they can put in the compost, the recycling bin and the waste bin. There is a certain generation that never lost the recycling habit, having grown up in the thrifty post-war years. It makes people feel that they can do something tangible and practical to lead towards a greener lifestyle. They feel that recycling is an inherently good thing, leaving aside the climate change agenda.
The enthusiasm for recycling is something that we must encourage and nurture in every way we can. We must help people to do the right thing, because it is the right thing to do. Additionally, as the Minister has said, we still send far too much waste to landfill. The UK currently produces 28 million tonnes of municipal waste every year, a whopping 83 per cent. of which ends up in landfill. We signed up to the EU landfill directive to try to get that figure down, and it sets targets for the reduction of biodegradable waste sent to landfill. We must achieve 75 per cent. of the 1995 level by 2010, 50 per cent. of that level by 2013 and 35 per cent. of it by 2020. We have some considerable work yet to do in this country, which is why we need a clear collaboration between Government, local government and the public.
In that spirit, I welcome the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border. His proposals go right to the heart of many of the issues that my constituents find most frustrating about waste. They say that they want to recycle as much as they can, but not if it means that their residual domestic waste will be collected less frequently than once a week. They are happy to recycle, but they ask why they cannot add so many plastics and waste products. For example, only in a few places, and none that I know of, can one recycle Tetra Pak cartons. So many of the juices and liquids that we buy are packaged in such containers, and they all go to landfill. Why is it that so many people cannot include polystyrene and other kinds of plastics in their recycling bins?
If we are going to ask people to increase their recycling rates and, more importantly, if we are going to threaten them with financial penalties if they do not do so, we must make it as easy as possible to recycle, which is the objective of amendments Nos. 108 and 109. In the interests of public participation and acceptance, we must not threaten to criminalise people who do not yet have the recycling habit or fail to comply with their local—

Steve Webb: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman’s amendment No. 108 would prevent authorities that do not have weekly residual waste schemes from running pilots. Although the boundary of pilots is that they must be revenue-neutral, they could be net give-aways. A council could run a scheme that did not penalise anybody but just rewarded people, but his amendment prohibits authorities that do not have weekly collections from running such pilots, which I thought he would approve of.

Gregory Barker: I should point out that the amendments are not mine but those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border. However, I wanted to put them before the Committee so that they could be properly discussed. The hon. Gentleman raises a sensible point, but the amendments’ main purpose is clear—to allow the Committee a full discussion of the issues. I shall speak clearly to my own amendment.
We do not think that it is in the interest of the recycling agenda to talk about criminalising people who simply fail to change their waste habits sufficiently. I cannot imagine a better way to get people’s backs up against something that they are naturally predisposed to do than to tell them that if they do not do it, the Government will regard them as criminals. There is a lot of merit in amendment No. 107.
The vital issue of public support and engagement leads me to new clause 18. I have spoken to the Committee about the public suspicion that stealth taxes are being dressed up as green taxes, and the danger that that poses of putting an otherwise enthusiastic public off greening our country. We must tread carefully around the issue of pay-as-you-throw bin taxes. My party agrees totally with the Government that if we are to reduce the amount of domestic waste that we produce, it must first be measured—we cannot reduce something unless we know how much of it we are dealing with—but how to incentivise the reduction of waste to landfill is where we part company.
By all means, we should offer people incentives: “Yes, you will pay less on your council tax if you send less waste to landfill.” That is our common aspiration and the ambition of new clause 18. However, my party does not wish to shake a stick at the public and say in the same breath, “But if you don’t comply with this regulation, we’ll fine you through an additional charge on your council tax.” There are a number of reasons for our opposition to such a penalty system.

Karen Buck: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the incentive is to be funded without a corresponding mechanism for raising income?

Gregory Barker: From the council tax. If somebody produces less waste and instead produces recyclates, which have an economic value, that should generate income. Currently, we have a standard tariff for council tax. Encouraging more people to recycle will result in over-achievement of targets. It should be revenue-positive.
It is a different sort of cash planning that assumes all the differentials and incorporates into forward revenue planning and penalties for non-recyclables. We think that that is the wrong way to go. If more people recycle and reduce their waste, that will in itself create surplus value, which should be retained. We should not create surplus value by penalising and fining people at this stage. If we are to get people into the recycling habit, we should be talking about carrots, not sticks.
As I have said, the Government’s approach is a good way to turn people off doing the right thing. The cost of living has already risen dramatically in the past year, so we must be careful that the measures are not seen as another way for this Government to extract money from the public, as they have done in so many other matters.

David Chaytor: I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman about the need for public reassurance that the new and innovative schemes are genuinely about waste reduction. He made the point about more carrots and no sticks, and said simultaneously that the scheme would be funded entirely from a council’s own budget, but surely the incentives to those who increase their recycling will be paid for by a significant increase in everyone else’s council tax. The stick will be a disproportionately higher increase in council tax.

Gregory Barker: I do not agree. If we were saying that there was no economic value to recycling and no benefit to be gained from reducing the amount of rubbish that is collected, the hon. Gentleman would have a point. However, as is recognised with benefit incentive systems that operate in north America and in some parts of Europe—certainly in the United States—there is an economic value to people recycling. Someone will reap the benefit. By and large, recyclates have an economic value, and if the council has to collect, through its contractor, less rubbish as a result of people recycling more, an economic surplus should be generated in the system. We are saying that that surplus should be distributed back to those who helped to generate it. It is not the zero-sum game that the hon. Gentleman and the Minister have implied.

David Chaytor: I appreciate the logic of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. In time, with a mature and fully developed recycling industry, that might happen, but at this stage in Britain’s recycling process, the flaw in his argument is that he is assuming that the value of the recyclate that is created is equivalent to the level of incentive needed to encourage more people to recycle. Given the legacy of the low levels of recycling that the Government inherited, that is just not the case. He is describing an ideal model, but one that is completely unrelated to reality.

Gregory Barker: Absolutely not. If the hon. Member for Bury, North wants to talk about the low levels of recycling that the Government inherited, let us examine the levels of recycling that the previous Government inherited from the Government before them. We must start looking forward. Historical parallels and analogies do not get us anywhere.
The hon. Gentleman is knowledgeable in such matters and, as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, he does a lot of work. I encourage him to consider some of the recycle bank work in north America. Dramatic results have been achieved, simply by the use of incentives. That was pioneered not by public money, but private finance. Within one financial year, it has been possible to generate significant amounts of value, which have been returned to the local residents. If the will is there, such results are possible. If we do not allow councils to have a fall-back in the first instance of large sticks as well as carrots, we will end up devising a much more entrepreneurial, incentive-driven system.
I am not arguing that we would rule out a philosophical moratorium whereby, if the process did not work, we would not go down the road of financial penalties. However, given where we are today in 2008 with a sceptical public, with people uncertain about how they view the Government and local government when it comes to imposing additional burdens, it is really important that we take the public with us and do not accept underperforming councils or those local authorities that are more likely to rely on the additional revenue raised from sticks and do not concentrate on extracting the value that the carrots would produce. To win the day, we must first go down the road of incentives.

Martin Horwood: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman about incentive schemes and their potential. It is much more important to concentrate on carrots, not sticks. However, I am having difficulty relating his argument to the amendments. I am trying to work out where it is that a scheme that focused on incentives rather than penalties is actually prevented in the Bill. Is the hon. Gentleman arguing against the permissive powers to run the pilots that might test these incentives in the United Kingdom?

Gregory Barker: That is exactly what I am doing. I am saying that I am against permissive powers that would allow councils to penalise those who do not recycle; that is exactly what I am doing. I thought that I had made that clear.

Martin Horwood: I am sorry, but that is not my question. My question is where does it say in the Bill that incentive schemes are prevented.

Gregory Barker: I did not say that the Bill is preventing incentive schemes. I am in favour of incentive schemes, and I am not discussing an amendment on incentive schemes, but I am against financial penalties. Amendment No. 107 states that the Bill
“does not include a power to create a criminal penalty on any householder for non-compliance with any aspect of a waste reduction scheme.’.”
That is my point.
New clause 18 would remove the ability to levy penalties charged on waste and instead encourages positive public engagement through the offer of rewards for waste reduction through council taxes.
There are a couple of other points that I want to make very briefly. Variable charging can be regressive, and it is easy to forget the impact that it can have on larger families who have to produce more waste than a childless couple. Also, it is not as easy for people living in flats and apartments to recycle as much as those living in houses, who have plenty of storage and access to multiple separate bins.
These issues must be carefully considered, and I do not think that anybody has come up with a really satisfactory answer as to how we encourage recycling in buildings of multiple occupation and large blocks of flats. Before the Government race off down the track of giving councils the power to levy penalties, we ought to think through solutions to those problems first—those problems are largely responsible for the very poor performance of our largest metropolitan areas in recycling tables. So I would appreciate the Minister’s assurance that the Government are working hard on researching solutions to those problems, as well as falling back on financial penalties.
Also, there is worrying evidence that imposing waste charges may in fact have a detrimental effect on the local environment, due to an increase in fly-tipping as people move to avoid the new financial penalties. We have all spoken about the dangers of fly-tipping and how it is totally unacceptable; the Minister herself spoke with particular passion on the subject on Tuesday. Since variable charging was introduced in the Republic of Ireland, 40 per cent. of households now admit to burning some of their own rubbish, which has a significant effect on local dioxin emissions.
So we must be certain that, if we were to introduce such a charging scheme in the UK, we would not be indirectly either increasing the cost of living for certain families, unintentionally damaging the local environment or generally putting the public off recycling, which is a project that I believe the vast majority of British people are positively predisposed towards. However, if we jump in and dominate the recycling agenda, as it will be given the media’s interest in the issue, with financial penalties and fines, we will be sending out the wrong messages to a public who are otherwise predisposed towards being constructive and working with us.
That is why new clause 18 would remove the ability to levy penalty charges on waste and instead encourages positive public engagement through the offer of rewards for waste reduction through council tax.
Debate adjourned.—[Siobhain McDonagh.]

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Five o’clock till Tuesday 8 July at half-past Ten o’clock.